Alright Alan mate let me know what you think of this man, also put that stats thing below if you wanted to use them or something as thought it would be quite useful



People will not accept war on tv. They will accept war in the movies. They will accept it in newspapers. Nobody will accept war on tv its too close.
(Marshall Mcluhan,1973)

War is an increasingly pertinent topic of these current troubled times with conflicts occuring globally and regularly between warring factions and political camps that share different ideological beliefs. Consequently the medias coverage of these events is under more scrutiny as a result an example of this would be the current Iraqi conflict. In which the United States military has taken 500 journalists with its military units to cover the conflict in Iraq, embedding the journalists with its troops going to the front line. This “embedding” does not mean unrestricted access and reporting, though the controls are not as stringent as they were in the first gulf war. Listed below are the Pentagon's protocol for their 'embedded' journalists which includes:
no information on ongoing engagements being released unless authorised by an on-scene commander, and information about previous engagements and results will be released only if described in general terms
reports giving specific information on 'friendly force' troop movements and deployment being prohibited
information regarding future operations being strictly prohibited and no information identifying postponed or cancelled operations will be allowed to be released
journalists 'inadvertently exposed' to 'sensitive' information will be briefed on what to avoid covering in their reports; journalists allowed to see sensitive information that would normally be restricted will be denied access to that information unless they agree to a security review of their coverage
journalists (including photographers and camera crew) are assigned to a specific unit and must stay with that unit unless permitted to leave (that is, they cannot rush off to another area where there may be more 'action')
no private transport
no personal firearms
These stringent controls upon the filtering of journalism and their televisual coverage in iraq is the factor that television channels have stopped showing actual footage of the real conflict in the ongoing war in iraq, which has lead to people dong their own reporting and posting their own footage through the medium of the internet. YouTube currently has over 300,000 videos with Iraq as the keyword, many of which have been viewed more than 100,000 times.
Video-sharing Web sites are home to some of the most striking images from the war. Video showing the hanging of Saddam Hussein found a worldwide audience thanks to such sites and a witness with a camera phone. The cockpit video of a U.S. pilot's accidental attack on British troops, originally released by a British newspaper, almost instantly streamed around the globe.
The Internet itself hasn't played favorites between the two factions. Video of insurgent snipers firing on American soldiers is widely available online. Suicide bombers also have taken to posting video statements before carrying out attacks. Soldiers beating down doors, storming into dark rooms. A medic bandaging a naked, bleeding boy on the street. Clips like these are all widely viewable on the internet.
The lack of actual film footage of conflict in the iraq war on television is even more suprising when you consider how war movies have been a constantly popular Hollywood production. Even hugely unpopular wars, such as Vietnam, have produced hugely acclaimed films such as The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Coming Home, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, all of them were Oscar winners.
The lack of actual footage of conflict for the iraq war has prompted directors over in america to produce films depicting the everyday occurencies of soldiers who are figthing over in Iraq. One of the more notable is Brian De Palma's who's film “Redacted” is based on the gang rape, murder and burning of 14-year-old Iraqi girl, “Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi”, by US soldiers in March 2006. The soldiers also killed her parents and younger sister in the film. Redacted means edited to make suitable for publication, De Palma's point in giving the film such a name is that the authorities have not allowed us to see what we have done to the people of Iraq. Access has been limited, images have been censored, and the few that have been seen have often contradicted the official version of events.The film itself was fictionalised for legal reasons. Though barely as instead of being 14, the raped girl who it is based on was actually 15. Early on in Redacted, one of the squad is blown up by an improvised explosive device and another is kidnapped and beheaded by fundamentalists.

The Public and Media Coverage of the War on Iraq:
The View from the USA

Barrie Gunter
Department of Journalism, University of Sheffield,

Chris Russell
eDigitalResearch.com,

Richard Withey
The Independent News & Media,

David Nicholas
Department of Information Science, City University,


An online survey was recently carried out by the British Life and Internet Project 1 over a 10-day period up to 8 April 2003 that sought to find out about public opinion concerning media coverage of the war on Iraq. The same survey also obtained responses from 267 respondents in the United States. This report presents the view from America and where appropriate compares this with the view from Britain.

Background
At the time of writing this report (15 April 2003), the war on Iraq is drawing to a close, but for over three weeks, it has dominated the news agenda. Indeed, for two weeks it was the news agenda. While numerous polls in Britain - many commissioned by news organisations - have tracked public opinion about the war itself, there are important questions to be asked about the role of the media. This war received unprecedented media coverage on television and in the press. News organisations invested significant amounts of money in placing reporters, correspondents, photographers and film crews in Iraq and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. The coalition armed forces invited journalists to join them on the front line where they were able to provide live coverage of events as they happened. Issues were raised about the amount of war coverage, the nature of the coverage and the independence and objectivity of these so-called 'embedded' journalists. Clearly, it was important to ascertain not only what the public felt about the actual war, but also about the way it was being represented to them by the major news providers.

An online survey was carried out by the British Life and Internet Project to explore Internet users' exposure to and opinions about the war news coverage. This survey was concerned principally with the status of such opinion in Britain. Its placement on the World Wide Web, however, meant that it was available to be completed by respondents from outside the United Kingdom. While not all the questions in this survey were relevant to respondents from outside Britain, many were appropriate for them to answer. In addition to the 1909 responses from British Internet users, 749 further responses were obtained from all over the world. The biggest single national response group among these self-solicited international respondents were in the United States (n=267). Although a small and by no means representative sample, either of the US general population or US Internet population, it was deemed to be a big enough return to be worth taking a closer look at. This report therefore presents summary findings from this respondent sample. Where appropriate, comparisons are made with the responses of the larger British sample, the results for whom have been reported more fully elsewhere.

News Sources
Respondents were initially asked to name their main sources of information that are happening in the world or locally in their own area. These two questions asked respondents to think about news sources they would normally have used before the war began.

For these US respondents, the most often mentioned main source for news about the wider world was the Internet (51%), followed by television (16%), radio (13%) and national daily newspapers (12%). Female respondents (17%) were much more likely than male respondents (8%) from the US to nominate radio as their main news source.
British respondents were much more likely to mention television (37%), national newspapers (23%) and radio (22%), but much less likely to mention the Internet (16%) in this context.

For local news, the most often mentioned primary news sources among US respondents were local daily newspapers (44%), followed at some distance by television (17%) and radio (17%), and then the Internet (13%). Male respondents (49%) were more likely than female respondents (38%) to turn to local newspapers as their main source of local news, while female respondents (25%) turned more often than did male respondents (8%) to radio. In Britain, also, local newspapers were the most often mentioned main source of local news (47%), followed by television (24%). Radio (8%) and the Internet (6%) were much less likely to be endorsed in this respect.

A further question asked respondents to indicate their main source of news during the war. The Internet emerged as the pre-eminent main news source on this occasion (54%), far ahead of television (24%), radio (13%) and daily newspapers (5%). Among British Internet users who responded, the positions of television (53%) and the Internet (20%) were reversed compared with the small American sample. Among US respondents, males (32%) turned to television as their main source more than did females (16%). Females (20%), meanwhile, continued to turn more often than males (5%) to radio.

Opinion about Amount of TV News Coverage
When asked about the amount of coverage of the war on television, a majority of American respondents (56%) said there was 'too much', with under one in three (30%) saying it was about the right amount. Around one in seven (14%), felt there was not enough war coverage on television. These findings exhibited the same broad pattern as those that emerged in Britain, where most respondents (60%) felt there was too much coverage, though somewhat more, proportionately than in America (37%) felt that coverage was about right in amount. Far fewer British Internet respondents (3%) than American Internet respondents felt there was not enough war coverage on television.

Trust in Media News Suppliers
In the version of the online questionnaire directed at British respondents, a long list of broadcast, print and Internet news sources (including named programmes, publications and web sites, as well as news stations) were presented for evaluation. For non-British respondents, a shorter list of generic news media were provided that comprised television, the Internet, national newspapers, radio, local newspapers, teletext and magazines. In each case, respondents were asked to rate each news source in terms of trust to give accurate and unbiased coverage of events along a five-point scale: would trust a lot; would trust a little; don't know; would distrust a little; would distrust a lot.
Looking at how these news media compared in terms of respondents trusting them a lot, the Internet was endorsed most frequently (36%), followed by radio (17%), national newspapers (11%), local newspapers (7%) and magazines (7%), and then television (6%). One in two American respondents (50%) said they would distrust television a lot.

Opinions about the Way TV has Covered the War
Respondents were provided with 21 statements of opinion about television's coverage of the war on Iraq. In each case, respondents were invited indicate their agreement or disagreement with each opinion along a five-point scale (agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly). These statements explored opinions that concerned the style of presentation of news about the war, the degree of emphasis on one side rather than another, and the types of images shown in the coverage. UK findings are also presented, where major differences of opinion between British and American Internet respondents emerged.

Most US respondents (62%) agreed that most reporters care about keeping military secrets. Male US respondents (68%) were more likely than female respondents (57%) to agree that reporters cared about keeping military secrets. Internet respondents from America were far more likely to disagree (60%) than agree (23%) that TV news has generally provided realistic accounts of the war (compared to 44% of UK Internet respondents who trusted TV accounts). Relatively few US respondents (10%) believed that TV coverage has given the public the complete picture about what is happening in the war, a point on which the same proportion of British respondents agreed.

A clear majority of US respondents (69%) agreed that the TV coverage had been over-dramatic and sensational (compared with 48% of UK respondents) and that TV coverage has been too superficial (64%; compared with 46% of UK respondents). Many also thought it was repetitive (83%)

More than three-quarters of US Internet respondents (78%) agreed that TV coverage has placed too much emphasis on the US point of view (compared with 53% of UK respondents), with far fewer (34%) agreeing that it has placed too much emphasis on the British perspective (similar to UK respondents - 36%). Few American Internet respondents (13%) agreed that TV coverage has given balanced coverage of both pro- and anti-war lobbies (compared with 26% of UK respondents). Relatively few US respondents (17%) also agreed that TV coverage has placed too much emphasis on Iraqi spokespersons (compared with 9%) of UK respondents).

Further items explored opinions about a number of specific aspects of the visual coverage and reporting by correspondents of the war. Nearly one in two US respondents (49%) agreed that the presence of reporters on the front line gives you a better impression of what war is like (compared with 54% of UK respondents). Fewer than one in four (23%) agreed that it is unnecessary for TV correspondents to report from the front line (compared with 27% of UK respondents). Hence, there was general support for the output of embedded journalists.

The use of experts in the TV news was less well received. A minority of US Internet respondents (31%) agreed that the use of experts in TV news has been effective in helping to explain what is going on (compared to 54% of UK respondents). In contrast, a minority (57%) of US respondents agreed that the use of experts in TV news is simply used to fill time (compared with 39% of UK respondents).

More than six in ten US respondents (62%) agreed that pictures of bombs exploding in Baghdad are likely to be upsetting to children (compared with 55% of UK respondents). But few US respondents (9%) did not want to hear news of how many coalition soldiers have been killed (compared with 8% of UK respondents). Despite concerns about the emotional impact of images of destruction on younger viewers, US respondents were more likely to disagree (51%) than to agree (25%) that TV has dwelled too much on images of destruction in Iraq - a finding that was close to that found among British respondents.

Again, despite their potential to cause emotional upset, only a minority of US respondents (19%) felt it was wrong for their domestic TV services to show Iraqi TV pictures of captured American service personnel. In this they were more lenient than UK respondents, of whom rather more felt this was wrong in the case of their own TV services (32%).

American Internet respondents were concerned about getting balanced coverage of the war on television. A clear majority (73%) agreed that there has been too much speculation by TV reporters about events in Iraq. Even more US respondents agreed that more use should be made of Arab reporters to explain the situation in their own countries (82%) and that it is important for the news media to tell the Iraqi side of the story (84%). These opinions received similar levels of endorsement among the British Internet respondents.

Conclusion
For these American Internet respondents, the online medium is the most important news source, and has continued to fill this role during the war on Iraq. Television has been superseded by the Internet among US Internet users, whereas this position has not been reached in Britain. For US female Internet users, however, the radio also remains an important news medium. Not only is the Internet used more than television as the main source of news, it is trusted more. Among these US Internet users, television emerged as a medium in which relatively few would invest a strong degree of trust.

The lack of trust in television was reflected further in a reluctance to afford TV coverage of the war with any true sense of realism. These US respondents agreed with their British counterparts that their domestic TV coverage of the war on Iraq had been over-dramatic, repetitive and superficial. Despite the interest in embedded coverage, few respondents believe that television news painted an accurate picture of events in Iraq.

These US respondents, in common with British respondents, were protective of children, but wished to be told all news, bad as well as good. They also wanted more balanced and comprehensive coverage of all sides in the conflict, even if that meant diluting their own side's perspective a little in favour of giving a little more airtime to the other side.


Notes to editors:
Methodology
The current report is based on the replies of self-solicited respondents resident in the United States in relation to an online survey that was targeted primarily at a British Internet universe. As with all online surveys, this one was dependent on a database of e-mail addresses. In this instance, the database was one compiled from 14667 e-mail addresses. Members of this online universe were notified about the survey by email containing a link to a web based online survey.

Online respondents were self-selected volunteers. There was no opportunity to control respondent selection in advance to ensure randomness or to set quotas by key demographics. These caveats therefore need to be borne in mind when considering the data provided here.

Sample
The data reported here were collected over a 10-day period from 29 March to 8th April, 2003. A total of 1909 UK Internet users and some 749 non-UK residents replied, among whom were 287 respondents resident in the USA. The US responses are the focus of this report, though comparisons are made, where appropriate, with UK findings. Although not statistically representative of the general US population or US Internet population, the return sample comprised a wide demographic mix. There was a gender bias, with 70% being male and 30% female. Respondents covered a range of age groups: 18-24 (5%), 25-34 (12%), 35-44 (20%), 45-54 (30%), 55-64 (19%), 65+ (14%). One in five US respondents were single (20%), one in two were married (50%), a few were living with a partner (7%), one in six were either divorced/separated (16%) and a small proportion were widowed (7%). Three out of four (75%) had no children aged up to 16 years living at home with them, while one in four (25%) had at least one child.



Background to The British Life and Internet Project
This paper reports initial findings from a new research project that has been designed to track the behaviour and opinions of Internet users in Britain. The British Life and Internet Project (BLIP) was launched in late 2002 to explore the way people use the Internet in Britain.2 Surveys are conducted online with known Internet users around the country. The survey has access to some 30,000 UK e-mail addresses that have been compiled from a number of Internet user databases.

The British Life and Internet Project utilises the online research tools developed by UK research organisation eDigitalResearch.com. Periodically, online questionnaires are posted on the BLIP Web site (www.britishlifeproject.co.uk) or e-mailed to members and Internet users invited to respond. Each survey collects information about the demographic characteristics of the sample and respondents' Internet using history. In addition, surveys focus on specific themes that are concerned with the way people use the Internet, what they use it for, their opinions about Internet services and its impact upon their lives. To date surveys and papers have been prepared on Christmas on the Internet 2002 and Broadband usage in the UK.

Barrie Gunter
Department of Journalism, University of Sheffield, 171 Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 1DF, UK
b.gunter@sheffield.ac.uk

Chris Russell
eDigitalResearch.com, 2 Berrywood Business Village, Hedge End, Hampshire, SO30 2UN
chris.russell@edigitalresearch.com

Richard Withey
Interactive Media, Independent News & Media, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS
richard.withey@indigital.co.uk

David Nicholas
Department of Information Science, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 4PB.
nicky@soi.city.ac.uk


Background to eDigitalResearch.com
Since 1999 eDigitalResearch.com has remained at the forefront of digital technology providing fast and low cost online user research solutions and website usability projects for UK clients such as Asda (Wal-Mart), AOL, Comet, Procter & Gamble, Goldman Sachs and thetrainline.com.

eDigitalResearch.com and designed and developed 4 proprietary online research tools –

eMysteryShopper – providing closed group website usability, functionality and customer service research.

eCustomerOpinion – providing fast and inexpensive real time research direct from site visitors and opt-in email contacts.

eGlobalPanel – providing omnibus surveys from a profiled panel of digital users.

ePollingStation – providing instant polls with immediate results for site visitors