Truth dies first?

With less than two weeks to go until the colloquium, events in and around Syria remain fast-changing and unpredictable. However, in what has very often been referred to as a 'media war', it is perhaps unsurprising that footage uploaded to YouTube last week purporting to show Liwa al-Islam rebels in Syria launching the very chemical attack that became the basis for threats of a US-led military intervention has come in for considerable scrutiny and criticism.

The fact that the barrel of the 'rebel' artillery weapon depicted in the video is helpfully draped in an identifying flag, while the rebels themselves continuously, if rather dispassionately, repeat 'Allahu Akbar' throughout the proceedings has led to speculation that this video was created by government forces, or perhaps even a rival rebel group.

In an era where wars are played out, at least on the international stage, through YouTube, Twitter, blogs and news media, the old adage (of disputed origin) that 'truth' is the first casualty of war seems more relevant than ever. Both the Assad regime and the rebel groups are undoubtedly seeking to not only shape the representations of the conflict that appear through major international news outlets, but also to produce their own propaganda, illustrated with photos and videos, for direct dissemination via YouTube and blogs.

Though military intervention in Syria perhaps looks increasingly unlikely, the justificatory resources upon which the Obama administration drew in making the case for an attack were premised wholly and exclusively upon the perceived veracity of one version of events; the 'truth' that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against rebels and civilians in Damascus.

But who decides on the 'true' version of events, and on what sort of basis? In whose interests does any particular 'truth' work best? In a world where propaganda wars have moved on from pamphleteering - where there is now the potential for even the smallest of groups to produce and quickly (and globally) disseminate relatively sophisticated multimedia products - how are we to judge or think about the 'evidence' which is presented as the basis for possible military action? What problems arise when film becomes a form of evidence of war crimes, and how far do cinematic themes of narrative, framing and characterisation figure in the production and interpretation of video 'evidence'? Are all representations of events in war 'staged' in some sense? And, given the special difficulties associated with establishing a reliable version of events during armed conflict, can we trust that the 'chemical attack' is the 'real' basis for proposed action at all? If not, what other factors have been behind Obama's push for intervention?

These are just some of the questions we hope to address when we meet next Friday, 4th October, and we hope that you will be able to join us!