And in the beginning...

Hello world,

Welcome to the ever evolving power of citizen journalism, from one who is about to embark on a 12 month MA Degree at Brunel University. As far as I am concerned...one of the premier journalistic qualifications in the UK.

Now, it should be pointed out, from day one, that there is no such thing as 'citizen journalism', in a definitive context. In the words of one Jon Snow, legendary channel 4 news caster, (who we met today, incidentally, thanks to Sarah Niblock, our spirited leader), to define a socially aware citizen as such is to "ghetto-ise" them. Those of us who choose to pursue journalism as a career are, truth be told, in no position of privilege beyond the bartender, the toilet cleaner, or the street sweeper, when it comes to reporting the news.

We have no access, no specific rights, and, you can bet, use the word 'journalist' in the wrong context to justify prying into things, and you are likely to arouse nothing but suspicion in those you wish to talk to. It is, therefore, going to be interesting to see just how we are taught the craft of journalism. The practical aspects, we have been informed / warned, will be a matter of time and commitment. The ideological aspects, however, depend on our own evolution.

Anyway, in order to get the blog rolling...here we go. Over the past few months, I have been submitting articles to a student based news site: lifeatuni.com. The freedom of expression is fantastic- you can write on any subject of a current affairs nature, that you believe may be of interest to students. So long as you have something to say...this site presents a channel to get out there and say it.

So, in light of the recent report from the US General David H. Petraeus into the effectiveness of the US troop surge in Iraq, coupled with recent news leaks from the MoD, here is my own opinion on the powers that be and their attempts to control media output from Iraq, four years on from the invasion. This article can now be found at: http://www.lifeatuni.com/lifestyle/articles/200709_articles/lifestyle_articles_rep.php


A GOOD REPUTATION? WE’RE GAGGING FOR IT.

Over the past few weeks there has been a noticeable shift in the nature of the negative information that we have been receiving from Iraq with regards to the ongoing conflict in the main stream media. A shift in that, there appears to be less of it. Maybe the United States’ top man on the ground, General David H. Petraeus, is correct in his recent assertion that George Bush’s ‘troop surge’ is paying dividends.

Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that a war weary public is getting tired of the death, the violence, and the bloodshed, and would much rather keep up with the showbiz ‘careers’ of the Big Brother house mates now that their 15 minutes of fame are, mercifully, coming to an end.

If I was a gambling man, I’d bet my bottom US dollar on the latter explanation, as opposed to the former. An explanation which should please our elected leaders, to whom Iraq has become an almighty brimstone around the neck. And blatant attempts to obstruct the reporting process do not do their reputations any favours.

The long awaited report of General Petraeus into the current state of affairs in Iraq, seven months on from the introduction of the troop surge, was delivered, as expected, on September 10th. And, as many predicted, it may as well have been in the hand writing of one George W. Bush.

As the Independent reported on the day following General Petraeus’ report, “Claims that the US military strategy is paving the way for a stable society bear little resemblance to the reality on the ground. The US is accused of manipulating figures relating to violence to fit their case, ignoring evidence which shows that the influx of 30,000 troops has done little to end the continuing bloodshed.”

The importance that those in power, with their various political motives and agendas, place on limiting any negative reportage from Iraq was exposed back on the 10th August when, on the front page of the Guardian, it was reported that the Ministry of Defence in the UK had issued a series of gagging orders to British troops, “barring military personnel from speaking about their service publicly.”

As the report continued: “Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.”

The report went on to quote directly from the MoD guidelines, which stated that: “All such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence.”

However, there do remain independent groups and NGO’s, trustworthy sources of information, to whom the truth remains more important than any covert, or overt, political agendas. And the picture they paint is far from that which was delivered by General Petraeus, and one which most definitely does not “enhance the reputation of defence,” much to the consternation, no doubt, of the MoD.

The ‘Iraq Body Count’ (IBC), an independent analytical project, is one such source. Those behind the project take great care to underline the fact that the IBC website is not intended as a news portal, but rather an independent analysis. Any information released by the IBC is based on carefully compiled facts. The projects purpose is to compile a record of all non-combatants killed in Iraq as a direct result of the 2003 military invasion.

As the IBC website states: “Deaths in the database are derived from a comprehensive survey of commercial media and NGO based reports, along with official records that have been released into the public sphere.”

In order for an ‘incident’ to be added to the ongoing project, the site explains: “All inclusions are derived from a minimum of two independent data sources.” In short, the IBC strives to deliver a true, unbiased account of civilian deaths in Iraq, free of political or national interests.

Confirmed records displayed by the IBC only list the body count as recently as August the 8th, though a section entitled ‘recent events,’ which is consistently updated, due to the uncertain nature of reports coming out of Iraq, gives a more up to date account.

For example, on Sunday, 16th September, at least 71 civilians died in ten separate incidents, including 11 Iraqi civilians shot dead in Baghdad by US security contractors, while in Baquda, a 6 year old boy was killed by sniper fire.

On Tuesday 11th September, 33 people died, including ten policemen who were killed in two separate incidents in Qaiyara and Mosul.

On Saturday 8th September, 59 people died. Four of these, who were found by police, had been killed returning from a funeral.

It is indicative of news values in the modern day that the death toll in Iraq, though as horrific as ever, is for the most part no longer considered worthy of main stream media coverage. These events are occurring on such a regular basis, that they are losing their worth to the media. Which no doubt comes as an enormous comfort to the likes of the MoD, who would really rather everybody concerned just kept quiet.

However, in the light of projects such as the IBC, the MoD have little to worry about. It is difficult to imagine how anything could do any more harm to the “reputation of defence,” than our interventionalist foreign policy in Iraq has done alone.

As you read through the list published daily by the IBC, which goes on, and on, and on, you are struck by a sense of numbness. The death count, and the details, are shocking, and disturbing, though words such as these are hopelessly insufficient. There is no way to describe how you should feel when faced with such indisputable, horrific facts and figures.

The world knows full well that, at the time of writing, post war Iraq has all gone horribly, horribly wrong. It is far, far too late for those who would rather the truth was kept under wraps to start searching for ways and means to convince us that everything is going just fine.