Use of Film and YouTube during War

Use of Film and YouTube during War

Introduction

Humanity for centuries, has been fascinated in trying to capture and reenact war through painting, plays, and stories. However, entering into the 20^th century, a new type of technology called film was mass-produced by the Lumiere Brothers. The film allowed war to finally be captured and preserved like no other technology before it. The point of my essay is to complicate, compare and contrast World War 1’s (WW1) use of film versus the Iraq War’s use of YouTube. I argue that YouTube is a platform used to broaden the range of video in a way that threatens the government’s control on censorship of visual media and film in times of war. YouTube has become a platform that can weaponize film and video by giving the public direct access to videos preventing government censorship.

WWI Film 

WW1 (1914-1918) also known as the “Great War” was the first war in which film was used for both reporting and military use. A man by the name of Oskar Messter became famous in the war for landing a monopolistic government contract with the German military to produce newsreels and develop technical film machinery for the German war effort (Kittler 185). Messter helped to establish a “target device for the detection of deviations by means of photographic records,” which consisted of a film camera mounted on top of a machine gun on an aerial plane. This device helped pilots in training and combat to see how close they were to hitting their targets in the air. Oskar Messter also became famous for first establishing film newsreels for the German army. These videos were used to help support the war effort and boost the morale of wounded soldiers on the home front, as well as preventing from experiencing psychosis due to staying in the trenches for too long. (Kittler 185). However, all of the newsreels of the war were staged to prevent the enemy from getting free reconnaissance on the German side (Kittler 185).

Another implication that filmed played in WW1 was for the use of reconnaissance and aerial footage of the battlefield (War Museum). For the first time in history, aerial film was used to track the movement of enemy troops and to coordinate artillery attacks on the ground. Aerial footage allowed for more accurate and deadly artillery attacks because reconnaissance planes could report back to the artillery commanders and adjust accordingly to the effectiveness of artillery on the enemy. Before aerial reconnaissance militaries had to send scouting teams on long and dangerous missions to gauge troop movements (Gummer). As a result, soldiers had to camouflage themselves to prevent being exposed by the aerial films by the reconnaissance planes.

As you can tell, WW1 had a lot of implication of film for warfare and technological use, since it was the first war in history to use film. However, the film was tightly regulated and taken by government contractors, like Oskar Messter. Government control of the filmography of war gave the government more power to regulate what the public could and couldn’t see allowing the government to gain more support for the war.

YouTube and Iraq War

YouTube was first launched on February 14^th, 2005 in San Mateo California by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim (Studio binder). The first video uploaded was called “Me at the Zoo.” Which depicted a young man by the name by the username of “Karim” filming himself at the San Diego Zoo in an 18-second video in front of a bunch of elephants. Within a matter of months after launching YouTube, it became the fastest growing website in the world (Christenson 162). In October of 2006, Google offered to buy out YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars and was graciously accepted by the founders. This event started to grow YouTube in what it is today drastically.

In 2003 the U.S. government along with the support of the President Bush’s Administration decided to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein (the former dictator of Iraq) had weapons of mass destruction. This U.S. led collation sent 177,194 troops to Iraq, including troops from countries including Britain, Australia, and Poland (Wikipedia). This invasion would be later called “Operation Iraq Freedom.” It would be one of the first wars in which U.S. troops would be filming on their own cameras and posting their raw footage online through the media platform of YouTube.

To support the war in Iraq, the United States Defense Department decided to make a YouTube page called “MNFIRAQ” (‘Multi-National Force – Iraq) (Christensen 156) This page would consist of videos taken by U.S. personnel on the front lines of Iraq. However, after the site was launched troops in Iraq were immediately restricted access to YouTube, because of the graphic content and anti-social behavior some of the U.S. troops were exerting on the Iraqi civilian population (Christensen 156).  The U.S. governments excuse in censoring U.S. troops content on YouTube, said they were doing it for two primary reasons: “to enhance and increase network security and protect the use of the bandwidth (Smith and McDonald 300). After these policies were taken into effect only videos that constituted as “supporting the American war effort” were seen on the page.

Both YouTube and Film

YouTube as Extension of Film. Both YouTube and Film have played a significant role in covering the Iraq War and WW1. In WW1, innovative technology was used to create a sense of realism of battle scenes. The producers would even have access to battle fronts so that they can capture scenes of war (Bell). These coverages immersed the viewers into the war. Comparatively, YouTube applies actual coverage of war scenes by the soldiers. The troop members record their activities and share them with the world. Furthermore, in film and YouTube, soldiers are the directors of the action they are recording. In WW1, the fighter pilots used Hythe Mk III Gun Camera to record happenings in the field (Hythe Mk III Gun Camera). The cameras were fitted with a glass plate that improved the soldier’s precision when taking a shot. In Military-media, as YouTube is referred, the soldiers record one another or themselves on devices like smartphones.

The films and YouTube, however, have their variations. During the war, the films were staged. For one, the Hythe Mk III Gun Camera allowed a director to assess the performance of a soldier, whose movements could be recorded at a far distance (Hythe Mk III Gun Camera). The statement alludes to coaching to produce the desired effect for a film. Governments were also heavily involved in making the films and paid directors to create narratives that would favor their country (Bell). Henceforth, the films promoted propaganda and patriotism from the public. Furthermore, through these films, the audience was told about the selflessness, bravery, and chivalrous nature of their soldiers because they had sacrificed themselves and what they held dear, to protect the country. Film chastised the government’s reason for being at war. YouTube’s use in Iraq did not need sponsorship or regulation by the government. The soldiers recorded their unstaged stories and shared them with the public for free. Equally, YouTube dispelled the propaganda that film cultivated. YouTube was an honest and realistic view of the war and the bad conduct of the military troops in Iraq. With fewer regulations, YouTube is reached people and told stories that the regulated film could not. It offered a counter-side story that could not be silenced by the government.

YouTube and Power to the People. YouTube can bring power back to the people preventing the government from controlling all forms of video and media during a war effort by extending film range and preventing government censorship. To illustrate, NIMFAQ resulted from the government’s attempt to control the barrage of negative publicity that US troops had acquired over its conduct in Iraq. Christensen (156) acknowledges that video clips depicting US soldiers conducting illegal and anti-social activities in Iraq. The DoD’s YouTube page was especially useful given that the damning videos mainly emanated from the US troops although activist groups also showcased the matter. The video posts, undoubtedly would not have gone viral were it not for YouTube because of media censorship. However, the world learned the horrible actions of the US military because YouTube has no censorship. The videos gave a different reality from what the US citizens had been told concerning the war. For instance, the citizens supported the use of force in Iraq as the only way to win the war (Rosentiel). A majority of the citizens also believed that the Iraq war was justified, following the anti-terrorism efforts by the country. However, the videos revealed that the US government was not a solution, but part of the problem. That instead of peace and war control efforts, the soldiers harmed innocent people and were also guilty of illegal practices. The videos by soldiers and human rights activists revealed the crimes the soldiers committed, but the US government wanted to remain a secret.

Similarly, the soldiers used YouTube to give their accounts on the war, which was not allowed by the DoD on its military computers. Papadopoulos (19) states that the government was trying to control the spread of information to ensure that content adheres to the traditional styles of propaganda, where the US soldiers are seen as victorious. Nonetheless, from YouTube, the public has access to the lives of the soldiers on and off the field. Papadopoulos (23) states that sharing YouTube clips is a form of entertainment and reconnection with citizens and the world. The clips illustrate a grim reality that soldiers are bored in Iraq, and would even resort to dangerous activities just to entrain themselves. Through YouTube, the soldiers also identify the challenges that they face in a foreign country, such as loneliness, fear, sadness, defeat, and tears (Papadopoulos 24). The US government, under the Bush administration, had gone to great lengths to prevent the broadcasting of American soldiers as being defeated or killed in the war.

Protecting Video and Film. You Tube protects film and videos from being withheld by the government. The government, as aforementioned, could not regulate what other soldiers or parties posted about the Iraq war. The non-NIMFAQ clips depicted the solders in disturbing warfare with Iraqi teens and children (Christensen 167). In addition, the clips also demonstrated how the soldiers took pleasure in hurting civilians and killing people, which the government could not censor. Smith and McDonald add that vernacular creation of the soldier-produced videos makes censorship difficult (293). The videos are very popular among the public because they explicitly depict the war frustrations that mainstream media does not cover. The public turns to these videos for reality check on the impact of the war because government-controlled media sanitizes warfare by focusing on technological advances instead of human lives. The public dependency on these videos disempowers the government from restraining coverage of the war from various sources.

Conclusion

YouTube in Iraq illustrated the negative aspects of the war, while film in WW1 was used to create support for the war. In WW1, film was used to spread propaganda and garner support for the war from the citizens. The films spread lies and misinformation to the public to sway opinion in favor of a country. In addition, film was crucial in portraying selflessness, chivalry, and heroism by the soldiers, who abandoned their lives to fight for a country. In contrast, YouTube contradicts the propaganda and bias that film created. YouTube gives first and uncensored accounts of the solder’s experience and activities in Iraq. Contrary to being heroes, the soldiers are embroiled in scandals and human rights violations. Further, it is evident that soldiers are prone to loneliness and defeat, which the government would not want the citizens to know. Correspondingly, YouTube extended the ability of film and video by being an uncensored platform where soldiers can share their grievances and conduct. YouTube is not as regulated as film and does not need to abide by standards or rules of film, which was controlled by governments. Film and YouTube have a crucial role in covering war activities.

Works Cited

“Hythe Mk III Gun Camera.” Forgotten Weapons, n.d., www.forgottenweapons.com/accessories/hythe-mk-iii-gun-camera/. (Accessed 15 Mar 2020).

Bell, Peter. “How the Early WWI Films Affected Our View of WWI.” Croocked Marquee, 2018, crookedmarquee.com/how-the-early-wwi-films-affected-our-view-of-wwi/. (Accessed 15 Mar 2020).

Christensen, Christian. “Uploading Dissonance: YouTube and the US Occupation of Iraq Media.” War, and Conflict, 2008, vol. 1, no. 2, pp155-175.

Papadopoulos, Kari Anden. “US Soldiers Imaging the Iraq War on YouTube.” The International Journal of Media and Culture, 2009, vol.7, no. 1, pp. 17-27.

Rosentiel, Tom. “Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008.” Pew Research Centre, 2008, www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/. (Accessed 15 Mar 2020).

Smith, Christina, and Kelly McDonald. “The Mundane to the Memorial: Circulating and Deliberating the War in Iraq Through Vernacular Soldier-Produced Videos.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, 2011, vol. 28, no.4, pp. 292-313.