Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
excellent history of (biased) reporting, August 17, 2006
This review is from: The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq (Johns Hopkins Paperback) (Paperback)
"The First Casualty" is excellent in that it lays waste to the current myth of the need for neutrality in war reporting. The book documents the history of war reportage from the Crimean War up until the Terror War of today. Since the Crimean War of one and a half centuries ago there has been no shortage of persons eager to go and report from wherever it is that people are being shot, bombs are being dropped, and battles are being waged. For much of this period war reporters have not been concerned about their neutrality. In fact, according to Knightley, it could be argued that there has yet to be a war covered in which correspondents were neutral. In the Crimean War, the conflict that gave birth to the war reporter beast, William Howard Russell performed admirably, though not as an objective recorder of history. He was definitely a writer who glamorized war with his "Charge of the Light Brigade" being one of history's greatest examples of a reporter's patriotism bleeding from between the lines. Furthermore, Russell, just about the world's first war correspondent, was not afraid to criticize his government and his critical reportage was eventually partly responsible for the collapse of his nation's government. Russell was anything but neutral. The American Civil War in many ways represents the nadir of war reporting. No one can claim that journalists followed any journalistic ethics, let alone neutrality, while covering that conflict. Journalists lied, invented stories, and recreated events due to laziness, greed, and to support personally held views. My personal favorite is the journalist that was bought off for cigars and whiskey. Knightley exposes all of this. Though war reporting did improve throughout the end of the nineteenth century and into the first two decades of the twentieth, correspondents continued to see war as an us-versus-them struggle and they all continued to romanticize war. Churchill, Gibbons, Hemingway, and Pyle are all prime examples from the book of reporters who did this. My favorite quote from this era is by Herbert Matthews who covered the Spanish War for the New York Times. He argued, "... I always felt the falseness and hypocrisy of those who claimed to be unbiased and the foolish, if not rank stupidity of editors and readers who demand impartiality...of correspondents writing about the war... A reader has a right to ask for all the facts; he has no right to ask that a journalist or historian agree with him." In Korea, American journalists were accused of being too patriotic and of not being questioning enough of their country's role in the war. Knightley believes that correspondents must accept some of the blame for the two million civilians that were allegedly killed in that war. Soon after, in Vietnam, western journalists began covering the war while supporting America's position. As the Vietnam War dragged on journalists' points of view changed as did their coverage of the conflict. For example, the My Lai massacre was uncovered and helped to accelerate America's withdrawal from Vietnam. Today it is not uncommon to hear that the press was at least in part responsible for America's defeat. I was not as interested in the sections of the book that cover the conflicts that I actually remember. However, one interesting note from this latter part of the book is Knightley's explanation of Bob Simon's experience of being arrested in Iraq. Knightley wrote: "The Iraqis released Simon and his crew unharmed at the end of the war." I recently saw a televised interview with Bob Simon and I doubt that he would agree with the above over-simplified statement. According to the interview that I saw Simon was badly beaten while he was in custody. And beaten for weeks or months (I cannot recall exactly) What really makes the above quotation remarkable is the paragraph that precedes the Simon paragraph. The last sentence of that paragraph says the following about a Time photographer being, "...blindfolded, searched, and held for more than 30 hours by a National Guard unit." Perhaps I am seeing something that is not there, but to me the two paragraphs, one right after the other, give a moral equivalency to the two events that should not exist. The book at around 600 pages is close to becoming not a book to read but a book to refer to. That is fine in my opinion and I sincerely hope that Knightley continues to update it as wars continue to pop up around the globe. Good reading, Andrew Greene Jakarta, Indonesia
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, April 24, 2005
This review is from: The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq (Johns Hopkins Paperback) (Paperback)
This is an excellent account of the history of war journalism. What is most interesting is that, as the title suggests, the author is able to demonstrate that many of the issues concerning this topic have remained the same since the Crimean War. The accounts of the coverage of specific conflicts is very informative. I just hope that this book is constantly updated with an account of each new conflict as it happens. I would love to know what Knightly has to say about the post 9/11 wars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The War Correspondent as a Coward, Propagandist, and a Liar, February 27, 2007
This review is from: The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq (Johns Hopkins Paperback) (Paperback)
Phillip Knightley's book THE FIRST CASUALTY is an informative summary of war correspondents who deliberately distort and lie about war. These correspondents not only lie and report non-events, they also omit crucial information. The tragedy is that these men do so quite willingly Knightley begins this study with the Crimean War (1854-1856) and the Boer War (1898-1902). Knightley corrects many of the distortions that were reported and informs readers of events ingnored at the time. Knightley also examines deeds of daring which never took place. Knightley's book discusses British and in particularly Australian atrocities during the Boer War which first went unreported but were later blamed on the rank-and-file infantry who were following orders of "superior" officers. The reporting blamed the rand-and-file and exonerated the officers who were actually responsible. Knightley's study of war correspondents during World War I is thorough. He reports of war journalists who badly distorted the record to the point that events were actually the opposite of what was written. There is on anecdote that bears attention. One journalist was offered huge payments if he could produce photographs and write stories about the atrocities of the "wicked" Germans. In spite of promises of huge payments, he was honest enough to admit he found none. Other war correspondents were not as honorable and wrote considerable bildge which went unexamined for a considerable time. Knightley's discussion of the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Bolsheviks/Communists. This part of the book would have been comical if the events had not been so tragic. As soon as the Bolsheviks stated they could not afford to pay Czar Nicholus' war debts, the Americans, French, British, Czechs, and Japanese sent forces to Russia to overthrow the Bolsheviks. The government officials who sent these troops were at cross purposes,and even the Whites', those opposed to the Bolshevik Reds, could not tolerate the outside invaders. There were accounts of the Whites fighting their "allies", and duruing one of the battles, American soldiers were lost who were supposedly in Russia to help the Whites, not fight them. The economic and social dislocation were so bad that diseases killed millions of Russians. All the Bolsheviks had to do was wait for their enemies to make all the mistakes. The interwar wars (1920-1939) produced the same dismal journalistic lying. Two events that Knightley covers are the war between the Ethiopeans and the Spanish Civil War. Both the Spanish "leftests" especially the Communists and the Phalangists led by Franco had their supporters who wrote considerable nonsense about their "side" and evil of their foes. The Communist journalists were the worst. They not only smeared and vilified any who disagreed with them, but they also wrote of non-events. Franco's journalistic supporters did the same. As an aside, George Orwell's book titled HOMAGE TO CATALONIA has a good account of all this. Soon after the Spanish Civil War was over, World War II erupted in Europe and Asia. Knightley separates fact from fiction regarding journalistic accounts of this war. For example, he undermines one story of the Americans destroying 19 Japanese heavy cruisers in a naval battle when the entire Japanese navy had only 14. He corrects the distortions on the Western Front,and readers have a much better idea of events there than was provided by news accounts at that time. Probably the worst reporting was done on the Russian Front during World War II. Western journalists, including American reporters, were held to strick Soviet censorship. What was sad is that these journalists willingly cooperated. One journalist reported that Stalin's son or son-in-law was captured by the Germans. At the end of World War II,this journalist was never seen again. Knightley gives "chapter and verse" of bad journalism during the Cold War. The distortions during the Korean War were appalling. There is no doubt that some of the North Koreans committed atrocities during this war. But what was not reported were the atrocities committed by South Korean troops. One Austrialian had to threaten a South Korean officer if he proceeded to shoot innocent women and children. This went unnoticed for years. If the reporting were bad during the Korean War, it was just as bad if not worse during the early stages of the Vietnam War. Journalists were encouraged to join the team rather than report actual accounts. However, some of the British and European journalists refused to cooperate. One quoted a speech given by Ky who remarked that his hero was Hitler and what South Vietnam needed was four or five Hitlers. U.S. diplomatic officials and THE NEW YORK TIMES wrote that Ky never made such remarks and did not know the journalist in question. Unfortunately for the government liars and their NEW YORK TIMES sychophants, Ky repeated these remarks almost verbatim via the BBC. Some have argued that the press helped end the Vietnam War. This was true after the disclosure of the My Lai Massacre. Knightley mentions that this was not considered newsworthy because so many similiar incidents took place. The situation was so bad in Vietnam for U.S. policy makers that they were often at odds with reporters who could not restrain themselves any longer. Events since 1975, when U.S. forces left Vietnam, have continued to be distorted. Knightely cites events re the First Gulf War and the disasters incubating in Afghanistan and Iraq. The realities of starting unnecessary wars in Western Asia especially when lies and gross fabrications were used to justify the treasure and blood might make Americans alert to political and journalistic lying. The journalists of THE NEW YORK TIMES Washington, D.C. papers have, until recently, been mouth pieces and nothing else for pro-war political liars and cheats. One wonders if the full record will ever be disclosed. If readers carefully examine Knightley's book, they may be able to separate fact from fiction.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
