The Anzac myth and the shaping of contemporary Australian war reportage

Abstract

Australia's World War I veterans, particularly the Anzacs of Gallipoli, are a quintessential part of Australia's cultural imagining. Mythologised by the war correspondents of the time, refined and embellished by generations of politicians and myth makers and stripped of their shortcomings and human foibles through repeated renditions, the diggers of the 'Great War' continue to define duty and courage in contemporary Australian society. This article focuses on contemporary media coverage of two controversial wars -Afghanistan and Iraq -and how the news media tasked with recording those wars subscribed willingly to the politically charged 'digger' trope, which effectively served both to shield soldiers from any political fallout and to perpetuate the myth itself.

State–Media Consensus on Going to War? Australian Newspapers, Political Elites, and Fighting the Islamic State

“…Frame analyses have been used to consider a wide range of topics (e.g., Falkheimer and Olsson 2015; Melki 2014; Powell 2011), including the “war on terror” discourse and media representations of it (see Dimitrova et al 2005; Hayes and Guardino 2010; Papacharissi and Oliveira 2008; Reese and Lewis 2009). In the Australian context, a number of studies analyze print media coverage of a range of issues (e.g., Hawkins 2009; Ubayasiri 2015; Wright and Holland 2014). However, there are only a small number of works on Australian media framing during the “war on terror” (see Dimitrova 2006; Donnar 2009; Isakhan 2014; Rice and Bartlett 2006), and none on the indexing hypothesis or media representations of the decision to fight the IS.…”

New Zealand’s ANZAC nurses: marketizing the great war for a 21st-century fit

“…We have added the following references to these statements: History can be constructed and stored for dissemination in a way that serves a predominant world view or preferred way of thinking" (Beaumont, 2015) (page 7). And In war history, for the conquered, stories of courage under fire, endurance and patriotism can be just as prone to myth and legend as those of the conqueror's strength and stealth (Beaumont, 2015;Ubayasiri, 2015). (page 8) Giesler and Thompson (2016) have recently suggested marketization as an "institutional disruption".…”

“…The narrative of the event can even be shaped to make a negative outcome palatable to an audience. In war history, for the conquered, stories of courage under fire, endurance and patriotism can be just as prone to myth and legend as those of the conqueror’s strength and stealth (Beaumont, 2015; Ubayasiri, 2015). The marketization of war history through public contribution and participation, along with the work of amateur historians and special interest history groups, serves an important function to engage audiences through the co-creation of knowledge.…”