The serial bombers

Has this northern shiftinfluenced the nature of the media coverage or its tone? Not to be racist about it, but too often, prejudice is skin deep. When the enemy is as blond and blue-eyed as you are, does it shake, vitiate your belief in his wickedness and the righteousness of your own mission? It may. A CNN poll suggests that approximately 50 of the American public was hardly overjoyed by the bombings, whereas in the case of Iraq, public opinion was solidly behind the them.

So: is television coverage on CNN and BBC reflecting the mixed reactions? Perhaps. On the one hand, there was by Day 2 and 3 more coverage of critical viewpoints. From one George Kenney, Sen.Jesse Helms and Yugoslav footballers, to footage of demonstrations against the NATO offensive in Moscow and Canada, channels gave space to discordant views. In comparison, criticism of the assaults on Iraq had received only polite, passing attention. But this was closer home, in Russia8217;s backyard; not so easy to bury criticism under a mound of moralistic rhetoric aboutmaking the world safe for humankind.

Like Ceasar8217;s wife, western TV channels felt it was their duty to be more faithfully scrupulous; to avoid criticism that they were colour blind, just as they had accused the Clinton Adminstration. Telling moment: during White House spokesman Lockhart8217;s press briefing, a journo asked why ethnic violence in other parts of the world was not being bombed out of existence too? Lockhart waved his hand dismissively,8220;next question8221;. Thus, the reasons for the Allied offensive had to be spelt out very clearly to viewers. Just so they understood the contradiction. TV coverage emphasised, explained Operation Allied Forces in a way the Iraq bombings didn8217;t require elucidation through extensive accounts of the crisis.

Western TV channels efforts to balance patriotism with impartiality were often as baffling as the real stuff. On Thursday night the BBC8217;s World Today asked its Washington correspondent to explain the confusion journalists sensed during President Clinton8217;s pressbriefing over the purpose and duration of the bombings. The correspondent replied that it was confusing because it was intentionally confusing: the Americans wanted to create confusion so that Milosevic remained confused about the Allies intentions!

And then there was the CNN story on how the media was dependent on official versions of what was happening because the media had been thrown out of Yugoslavia. The battle on the box was to pit one version of true lies8217; against the other and hope for the best: thus NATO claimed two MIG airplanes downed and as proof showed us footage of a shiny green object which looked like the magnified backside of an exotic insect. Yugoslav denied it. Produce the pilots, challenged Yugoslav. Can8217;t find them, replied NATO. All live, on air, for your dare we say it? confusion.

War or no war, this is television. War has to be packaged like everything else. So there8217;s the promo on CNN right out of Hollywood, with the Stealth bombers gliding into the night, the American flagfluttering proudly encircled by flames and in a news feature a young fighter pilot smilingly explains just how many bombs he can deliver. Brrrrrr.

Let8217;s end with Clinton who has begun to look everlastingly tired. After himself TV has been his greatest ally and worst enemy. During his televised speech and subsequently, the bags under his eyes were as heavy as those laden with the weekly shopping from the supermarket. The toll of tool-foolery: did he look like a man who would win battles in the air and loose the war on the ground?