The onslaught of images that run from the front page of The New York Times to CNN's "Night Vision" present the public with uncensored, palpable emotions that seemingly contradict the hard-edged battlefront. The privacy of a soldier's death is trumped by the media's right to represent reality. These graphic images are infused with personal appeal, grainy newspaper reproductions of troops and tanks, anguished civilians and blood-streaked patriots, blue skies eerily contrasted with wind whipped sand-a landscape seemingly foreign yet penetrating our backyards. The viewer's identification is heightened in spite of the divisions of continent and climate. Perhaps the news is, as correspondent Peter Arnett stated, "like an action movie, only real." The public is unable to differentiate fact from fiction.
The voyeuristic society in which we now live has numbed our minds to the truth, as footage of POWs becomes another directed scene, human beings losing their life on the camera, the suffering devalued by the informalities of reporters and the mysteriousness of war undermined by the breath of the audience. How much should we be able to see, and how do networks discern between informational and sensational? Dressing up the screen with catchy headlines and fancy graphics transforms the coverage of war into an art form; the viewer is subjected to take it all in while keeping pace with the news ticker that runs across the bottom of the screen.
The relationship between the army and the reporters further complicates matters, as the correspondents, in the midst of perilous documentation, are protected by the troops. At the same time, the reporters pose a potential threat to the army, as seen in the cases involving Rivera and Arnett, and we cannot forget their potent role as first-hand interpreters, engaging in dialogues that we cannot fathom from the comfort of our living rooms. Trust is engaged on several levels: the reporters trust the army to harbor them as privileged non-soldiers, the army expects that reporters will not expose sensitive information and the public relies upon the reporters for realistic depictions of the Middle East. With all these relationships at stake, it is no surprise that boundaries have been crossed, as reporters find themselves unable to remain neutral to their surroundings.
In the midst of the breaking news coverage, the viewer is left to reconcile his own thoughts. We may be assured by media across the board that we are being kept up-to-date, as story by story rolls in with an urgency that challenges the troops and a supposed precision that mimics the smart bombs. However, in the face of all this reassurance, we are left without any answers. There is no address for the future when the focus is on capturing the present. As the public follows the war day by day, week by week and deadlines for finality are approached and passed, we are left to wonder where this path is heading, as the war weaves like a snake through the sand, without direct course, and taking unforeseen turns for better or for worse. We are subjected to regard war on a day-to-day basis, when in actuality, war is not about individual segments of time, but the unforeseen consequences that have yet to be presented to us.
For me, the word 'war' rings with a blunt finality, a series of events that are sandwiched between declaration and reconciliation. However, this all too simple outlook glazes over the perpetual nature of war-its aftermath will reverberate from oil field to desert to the streets of homeland security. The idea of permanence, the notion that troops may have to police the Middle East for the rest of my lifetime, the destroyed alliances, the new animosities and the rekindled old ones in the name of "Freedom Fries"-all of these questions cannot be reconciled by simply observing CNN on a daily basis. There is no answer in the dependency on the news, what the public is straining their ears to hear but cannot. We are not going to get the solutions by tuning in everyday, wondering what we are being told: if it is accurate, if it is biased, or if it is really just a reassuring mask. Is it all propaganda, fooling the public by the in-depth coverage, perpetuating the belief that they are informed when in fact they are being duped into following yet another TV drama? We need to read the war like a roadmap, using checkpoints to chart our progress, paying attention to misdirection and keeping in mind the final destination.
Perhaps the only reassurance we have at this moment is embodied in our troops, and those of the coalition forces. The soldiers keep us believing, invested and engaged in the daily bullets of headlines. They infuse the newspapers' immobile words with the value of human life. They are living, breathing and dying representatives of America.