Why have states become increasingly concerned about controlling the media

during times of war?

 The role of media has increased in recent times, no matter whatever is the situation. A
few years back, people did not have the idea of media power, and they consistently
understated it. However, with the recent technological developments, people have started
relying on Media more than ever. The power of media can be seen throughout the history and
recent cases of Palestinian issues and war, which will be discussed in detail throughout this
essay. According to Devereux (2013), multimedia refers to communication channels that
communicate messages, amusement, films and instruction, marketing offerings, and other
content. It includes physical and online newspapers, TV, radio, distribution system, phones,
faxes, and pick-ups. It shows how we connect with the world in various ways. As it pertains
to any media, mainstream press can be seen as everything from telephone talks to regular TV
news. When we speak of reaching a considerable number of people, we term mass media.
Local news outlets, for instance, are newspapers and local/regional TV.

Media may influence the public conversation, power, and insight. Thus, access to
media can affect attitudes. Various media are used to share awareness internationally, and
ideally, democratic mainstream media is a weapon for and an indicator of democratization.
Freedom of speech is not the heart of functioning journalism and a fundamental human right
and essential to a democratic system. It advocates for freedom of expression with the right to
knowledge and the representation of many viewpoints. For a community that tries to shift
towards peace, efficient and democratic media are vital in any attitude of avoidance (Kuusik,
2010).

The foreign press may garner global attention in the event of a crisis or a war.
Mainstream media are an integral component of everyday life in industrialized nations
mainly. Thus they may shed some light upon conflicts worldwide. Given that most military
wars nowadays have motives for governance rather than territory, the parties frequently care
that the majority is on “their” side, which has excellent potential to distort the facts and
attempt to control information flow. This is why it is vital for the world’s audience and
directly impacted individuals to intervene in impartial and free global media. Nevertheless,
there is little international attention to the number of disputes. Thus local communications are
essential.

Broadcasting news on community radios can make it easier even with various
languages to reach people in diverse locations. This enables individuals to express themselves
personally and combine their unique lived experiences and lifestyles far effectively than with

1|Page
other media. The risk of racial conflict being manipulated and inflamed must, nevertheless,
be disregarded. The local news media, particularly radio, also benefit that peace messages
may be transmitted to passing combatants and migrants in border regions. Democratic news
organizations have more to do; it is essential that knowledge is not just inert in society but
also in content development and transmission.

Two significant ways to comment on international terrorism are available. The

conventional news reports are the primary and dominating mode as it seeks neutrality by
providing chosen, context-less historical occurrences. It summarizes complicated events
quickly but does not attribute blame or liability. While the consequences of happenings on
ordinary persons are documented, they are characteristic of anything official, reasonable, and
deliberate as an unpleasant but inevitable result (Debrix, 2007).

They would explain the futuristic weaponry kinds used as if there is any actual effect
on these occurrences as a fabric and model of an airplane and the bombs it releases. The
difficulty with this kind of journalism is the objective and dehumanization of aggression.
Violence targeting implies that it is interpreted as if it occurs on its own without reference to
the politicians that command or to people responsible for implementing it. The central
perspective of these events is dehumanized, as it fails to put the front line: those murdered,
hurt, and traumatized by (typically masculine) leadership who reject other methods to resolve
disagreements.

According to Puddephatt (2006), the media have a specific role in safeguarding the
person’s right to freedom of speech. As the right of individuals, the program defines in the
press. Individuals could trade in the toilet with the faucets under communism all across
Eastern Europe. This had minimal societal consequence since such facts or views could not
be included in public conversation. Towards being relevant in a democratic sense, the right to
freedom of expression demands a means of public dialogue, a shared existence. Also, because
media has that function, which they see to be essential, especially protecting international
human rights legislation, providing information about the world, promoting public debate and
discussion, and guarding government authority, another example of this scenario can be taken
from Kashmir and the aggression of Indian army. Indian army has imposed lockdown in the
Kashmir state, where people are living under a curfew, for now, for more than a year.
However, no cases of terrorism or lockdown broadcasted on national television as the
government has restricted the Indian Media. This is done to ensure the face is saved and

2|Page
people do not turn against their armies. Indian government wanted to act holy and excellent.
In order to do that, they had to make sure no media coverage is given in Kashmir.

As a result, the role of the media must be considered from the initial stage of
involvement. The press must, for instance, play a part in any peace discussions - all of the
participants are to undertake to preserve the freedom of the media and to abstain from ever
using the press to propaganda or to fight any attempt at intimidating, threatening, or abusing
the independence of the media. However, it does not always seem clear (Puddephatt, 2006).

It has become clear that the press had a critical part in creating and preserving
animosity between these parties of the struggle throughout most of the Cold War. Both Soviet
and Western media sources portrayed one another as inadequate and used “us versus them”
language. Mainstream viewpoints were reinforced, while critics were marginalized. To
legitimate themselves and condemn their opponents, the media created virtuous national
identities (Doherty, 2003). The fostering of a protracted climate of dread was an essential
component of maintaining the Cold War hostility. Dramatic and politicized propaganda has
generated a society’s suspicion of inherent instability and severe anxiety. This helped the
state to collect a supporting populace. The press also served as a vehicle to communicate this
struggle with the people of the Soviet Union. It was a very hostile move, which worked
effectively as a Western soft power tactic (Bernhard, 1999).

War reporters to verify their news at the source initially arose in the mid-nineteenth
century and quickly gained public attention. William H. Russell, who chronicled the Crimean
War (1854-55) and the American Civil War for The Times of London, is one striking
example. Whether to secure wartime victory or maintain morale amongst soldiers or people,
administrations soon enforced strict restrictions on reporters. Throughout World Military I,
the military conflict departments dispatched officials to numerous publications to maintain
rigorous control over reportage. Reporters were steered separately from the operations in the
field. All sides of the war believed that the media must be used to spread state propaganda.
Thus publications were banned, and reporters were harassed. This is still true in many
nations. Reporters are prohibited from entering the theatre of activities. In times of conflict,
journalistic freedom and the public’s right to know have yet to be realized (Mercier, 2005).

The core reason behind the controlling of media by governments is that everything is
happening at the moment of the war. There are many state secrets, plans, and dynamics that
the governments do not want to share with the people. Media coverage is too much these

3|Page
days that it adds additional risk in the leaders’ minds. Other than this, when violence is
broadcasted during the war or any conflict, many people are encouraged or pumped to get on
the streets and add to the violence. Instances like these have encouraged countries to stay
with their secrets and control the Media as much as possible to ensure that the situation is
under control.

One recent example of this instance is the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Many
media houses were shut down and were dictated to broadcast only specific news. The press
was instrumental in persuading the masses of Jews that Palestinians were not members of the
human race like them. There have been no coverings or bathrooms at inspections, not just out
of malice or to save expense, but to support the concept that border checks did not serve
humans. The press was committing a heinous crime in this regard. The media exclusively
covered the aggressive Palestinians, not the humanistic elements of Palestinian life, because
doing so would undermine the occupiers’ core narrative. The Israeli Media likewise
portrayed the Israeli as the final victim, the lone perpetrator (United Nations, 2005).
However, one cannot be silenced for long, and it will fire back on the Israeli government
sooner or later.

4|Page
 References

Bernhard, N., 1999 ‘U.S Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-

1960’. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Debrix, 2007. François. Tabloid terror: War, culture, and geopolitics. Routledge.

Devereux, E., 2013. Understanding the media. Sage.

Doherty, T., 2003 ‘Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American

Culture’ New York: Columbia University Press

Kuusik, N., 2010. The Role of the Media in Peace Building, Conflict Management, and

Prevention. [Online] E-International Relations. Available at:

<https://www.e-ir.info/2010/08/28/the-role-of-media-in-peace-building-conflict-

management-and-prevention/> [Accessed 8 July 2021].

Mercier, A., 2005. War and media: Constancy and convulsion. International Review of the

Red Cross, 87(860), pp.649-659.

Puddephatt, A., 2006. Voices of war: Conflict and the role of the media. International Media

Support, [online] Available at:

<https://www.mediasupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ims-voices-of-war-

2006.pdf> [Accessed 8 July 2021].

United Nations., 2004. ROLE OF MEDIA IN PEACE, CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND

PALESTINE DISCUSSED BY INTERNATIONAL MEDIA SEMINAR | Meetings

Coverage and Press Releases. [Online] Available at:

<https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/pi1663.doc.htm> [Accessed 8 July 2021].

5|Page