What they say is what we get

Are the mistakes part of a highly sophisticated media campaign by the coalition or simply one of the hazards of warfare and live television?

A few examples: within the first 48 hours Umm Qasr had been ‘‘secured’’. Two days later, BBC reported ‘‘very stubborn resistance’’ there. A week ago, ‘‘coalition forces (were) driving into Iraq’’ with their tanks knifing through the sand like butter. Last Monday, there was a ‘‘messy’’ slow down, with coalition casualties, sandstorms and ‘‘stiff’’ resistance (BBC). Tuesday, the British were ‘‘leaving pockets of resistance’’ behind as they headed towards Baghdad (BBC). By Thursday, The New York Times’ Michael Gordon said that Baghdad ‘‘had been put on hold’’ as the forces concentrated on the southern cities like Basra and Nasiriyah (CNN).

Early Wednesday, Iraqi TV was silenced by an American missile: ‘‘General Franks,’’ boasted CNN, ‘‘wanted to pull it down now’’ not a moment earlier or later. This was precision bombing — and precision timing as well. That evening came reports of a misdirected American bomb falling in the Baghdad marketplace, killing civilians. Till Friday afternoon, CNN and BBC World were unsure of the bomb’s identity. Speaking of the attack, BBC would add, ‘‘the exact cause of that we don’t know.’’

Last week saw stories about coalition forces rushing aid to needy people — BBC’s Thursday images of young people helping themselves to everything before distribution could occur — such was their hunger and thirst. The same night, DD’s Sashikumar in Iraq with an aid convoy, found Iraqis rejecting the aid because of its source. Earlier, a lady from the World Food Programme told CNN that Iraq had food for all till the end of April.

The ‘‘massive uprising’’ in Basra: here, the TV channels continued to report the ‘‘uprising’’ (though its size shrunk with each telling), even as Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, in Basra, denied any such rebellion.

And Saddam Hussein was supposed dead or injured during the first ‘‘target of opportunity’’ bombing. His subsequent TV appearance, seemingly hail and hearty, if a trifle bloated, didn’t convince TV channels and the coalition who thought it a pre-recorded videotape. Monday had Mr Hussein on TV again. ‘‘I am not convinced,’’ declared CNN’s Jim Clancy, ‘‘that is Hussein.’’ Whereas BBC’s Rageh Omaar said, ‘‘there is no doubt in my mind that this is the Iraqi leader.’’

And so it went: the Iraqis accused the foreign media of exaggerated claims, the coalition regretted graphic Arab broadcasts, in particular a gruesome Al Jazeera one on two dead British soldiers. The British General (no less) considered it ‘‘deplorable’’, the Al Jazeera correspondent tartly replied that ‘‘we show the truth even if it is dirty’’(?!).

Barring the Basra uprising and Saddam Hussein, such reports could have been genuine mistakes by either correspondents or coalition forces, readjusting strategies to ground realities. As one American reporter told DD’s World View (quite the best coverage has been DD’s), ‘‘I won’t know what is going on (any where else), I cannot worry about the big picture’’. He reports what he sees at a particular moment and what the military permits him to. That’s why the truth sometimes blows up in his face.

If this is propaganda, it is awful bad propaganda. Telling one story today and changing it the next loses you credibility. Also, after Afghanistan, the coalition knows that the likes of Al Jazeera would provide alternative ‘truths’.

If it is the Pentagon’s strategy to control the flow of information and mould world opinion knowing its propaganda would be revealed sooner rather than later, then it must be run by extremely naive and stupid individuals. And God help America.