War Corresponding as a Female Occupation

Rieder writes, “the [Iraq] war reminded us once again what serious business journalism is, and how much it can demand of those who practice it” (“In the Zone”, 6). War corresponding is a challenging occupation, both physically and psychologically dangerous. Concerns regarding sensitive information have forced the United States government to restrict the media’s access to said information during conflicts. War reporting has traditionally been a male occupation, which raises concerns to the author, who has considered pursuing war journalism as a career. In exploring war corresponding as an occupation, the author has researched psychological hazards, censorship concerns, and females who report war.
Reporting war is a dangerous occupation. Besides being killed, there are psychological hazards as well. Feinstein writes “fear, sadness, guilt, nightmares, agitation, are just some of the symptoms of psychological distress that are a consequence of experiencing or witnessing life-threatening events” (75). Lifetime rates of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression among war correspondents, both embedded and unilateral (non-embedded), are close to those of combat veterans, and journalists who have these conditions do not receive necessary treatment (Feinstein, 75). This can create the ethical problem of the supposedly objective journalist who filters events and thus provides biased news. “However, big news organizations such as CNN and the BBC are waking up to this fact and providing the necessary help to journalists” (Feinstein, 75). Since PTSD and major depression, while disabling, are treatable conditions, and “the majority of individuals exposed to a traumatic event will not develop any formal psychiatric disorder” (Feinstein, 75), the author believes the psychological dangers of war reporting to be an acceptable risk.
Despite the psychological hazards, many journalists insist on reporting war from combat zones. Feinstein writes “the importance of bearing witness, keeping the public informed of important events, having a ringside seat as history unfolded, and personal ambition”(76) are common reasons why war journalists repeatedly return to war zones. While these are valid reasons, Feinstein suggests a deeper biological reason:
There is evidence that individuals who are attracted to risky and dangerous professions are to a high degree biologically primed for this type of activity. . . . final year Canadian journalism students who propose following a career in foreign lands not only have a fundamentally different personality profile from their peers who wish to remain at home, but also possess different cognitive attributes. (76)
However, the idea that those who end up as war journalists are biologically suited to their occupation could be said of any career, including professional athletes, college professors, politicians, and psychologists. Perhaps the best reason for reporting war is to find the truth and report it. Rieder asserts,
The only way to cover it is by being there. That’s particularly true in the current war, where the Pentagon has hardly been forthcoming, and al Qaeda and the Taliban aren’t exactly what you would call objective sources. (“Being There”, 6)
Bringing the truth of current conflicts to the masses, especially to the all-important voter, is an essential task. The truth, however, can be skewed; not through the fault of the journalist but by his or her sources.
Through embedded journalists, the public can receive a better, although incomplete, picture on conflicts occurring half-way around the world. This is not the journalists’ fault, but rather because of restraints placed on them by the American government. Most of these restraints are due to security concerns:
Embeds cannot release information about the specific number of troops, equipment, vehicles, future operations, security levels, intelligence collection, or the effectiveness of enemy action. The rules also prohibit the media from publishing identifying features of enemy war prisoners or other detainees. (Zeide, 1315-1316)
The “ground rules” rely on a policy of withholding information from the media. Zeide explains,
If journalists are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information, commanders brief them about what to ‘avoid covering’. Commanders can explicitly grant journalists more access to confidential information, which entails agreeing to military review of coverage before publication, a prepublication ‘security review’. (1316)
In receiving incomplete information, reporters are already at a disadvantage in reporting accurately and without bias. Obviously, it is a terrible idea to reveal any crucial intelligence that could be recovered by enemies of the United States, but “during World War II . . .no print journalist and only one radio journalist ever deliberately violated the voluntary censorship code after having been made aware of it and understanding its intent” (Garneau, 10). Garneau cites Evans on “incidents when correspondents violated censorship in order to save soldiers [sic] lives. . . the history of war reporting suggests that correspondents and editors do not willfully betray operational secrets” (10). With this in mind, the author finds no reason why embedded reporters should have restricted access to information about operations they report on.
There are two traditional First Amendment challenges to military restrictions on the media. Zeide points out, “first, that excluding the press violates their right of access, based on the idea that military battlefields are public fora and second, that prepublication security review constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint” (1325 – 1326). However, Zeide concludes “the [embedding] program passes constitutional muster” (1343) despite the vulnerability to bias. While not perfect, “the public, press, and military view the embed experiment as a success” (Zeide, 1343) and Rieder agrees: “it’s clear that the great embedding experiment was a home run” (“In the Zone”, 6).
Surprisingly to the author, as women in the military are not allowed to be in combat units, women were allowed to be embedded reporters during the major fighting in the Iraq conflict. Braiker quotes Major Tim Blair, “we never had that [gender] as a criteria one way or another on where the embed was positioned” (“Fembeds”). Surprisingly to the rest of the world, gender was not a factor for female embedded journalists in completing their work competently. “The fact that it was no big deal for female reporters to ably cover desert warfare is perhaps in itself a big deal” (“Fembeds”). Braiker cites Pam Johnson, “The headline is that they were embedded and it worked just like it did for their male counterparts. And that’s probably good news” (“Fembeds”).
Not surprisingly, war reporting was traditionally a male profession. “Men were the fighters, after all” (Bartimus, 9). While some female embedded reporters complained of not being on the front lines (“Fembeds”), the glass ceiling on war journalism has definitely been shattered. “Women journalists no longer have to plead or finagle their way into combat coverage just because of their gender. They have proved – to soldiers, editors, each other and themselves – that they can go everywhere and do everything” (Bartimus, 15).
Rieder boils the whole point of journalism to one sentence: “To find the truth” (“Being There”, 6). The author concludes that regardless of physical and psychological hazards, First Amendment implications, and gender, war corresponding is an essential occupation to the American public and can be performed by any qualified journalist, male or female. “Sometimes it [reporting] means staring into the heart of darkness. . . .it’s a risky, uncomfortable, frustrating process. But it’s the only path to the truth” (Rieder, “Being There”, 6).

Sources:

Bartimus, Tad. “Bullets and Bathrooms: Women had to contend with sexism in the military to win recognition as war correspondents.” Media Studies Journal Summer 2001: 8 – 15.

Braiker, Brian. “’Fembeds’ Reflect on Covering War.” Newsweek 16 May 2003. December 6, 2005 .

Feinstein, Anthony. “The Psychological Hazards of War Journalism.” Neiman Reports Summer 2004: 75 -76.

Garneau, Greg. “War Reporting, News Censorship.” News Photographer September 2001: 10 – 11.

Reider, Rem. “Being There: reporting from the war zone – dangerous and essential.” American Journalism Review April 2002: 6.

---. “In the Zone: The Pentagon’s embedding plan was a winner for journalists and their audiences.” American Journalism Review May 2003: 6.

Zeide, Elana. “In Bed with the Military: First Amendment Implications of Embedded Journalism.” New York University Law Review October 2005: 1309 – 1343.

Mandatory Foreign Language Fluency for College Graduation

A Marine captain once told the author about an incident in Iraq when he had two Iraqi prisoners separated after they were caught speaking Arabic to each other. No translator was available, and none of the Marines present could understand what the Iraqis were saying. The prisoners may or may not have been conspiring, but without knowing what they were saying, the captain separated the prisoners to protect his Marines. Americans live and interact in a multilingual and multicultural environment, and fluency in Arabic would have helped the Marine captain in his situation. Many universities in other countries require fluency in a foreign language for graduation, and colleges in the United States would do well to follow suit.
Some believe that adding a foreign language requirement would add an unnecessary strain to small universities that are already struggling to maintain current programs. While this is a valid claim, a small technical college like Montana Tech offers courses in three foreign languages. Adding a foreign language fluency requirement in one of the languages offered would create little administrative overhead and increase enrollment in those courses.
Learning a second language builds cultural awareness. Human culture and language are inexplicably linked, and foreign language study helps dissolve misconceptions about foreign cultures. In cultures very foreign to native English speakers, such as those found in the Middle and Far East, cultural understanding is integral to survival. Increased cultural understanding also increases open mindedness and builds empathy for others.
Learning a second language helps one improve one’s ability in English. Data obtained from the College Board show a positive correlation between SAT scores and foreign language study. Students who had no background in a foreign language achieved a mean score of 366 on the verbal portion of the SAT. Students with one year of foreign language achieved a slightly higher average of 378, and students with five or more years of foreign language achieved a mean of 504(Eddy). Improved communication skills are always in demand by employers, even if foreign language fluency isn’t required.
In today’s world, the ability to communicate internationally is increasingly important. Spanish is widely spoken in the United States, and Spanish fluency is becoming important in fields such as law and medicine. A friend of the author, who is a registered nurse, has explained to the author the value of foreign language fluency in treating Spanish-speaking patients. Business relations with China have generated a need to communicate in Mandarin, and China already requires fluency in English to graduate from college there. For travelers, being able to communicate in the native language of a foreign nation shows politeness and consideration for the people there.
Integrating into today’s international world can only help United States’ citizens. One way to accomplish this is to learn a foreign language. To conclude, mandatory fluency in a foreign language for college graduation would help improve U.S. foreign relations and trade.


Source:
Eddy, P.A. “The Effects of Foreign Language Study in High School on Verbal Ability as Measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test – Verbal”. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1981. Ed 196 312.