In a time of war, we must all do our part. For the journalists, that means simply: do your job. You are not a soldier, nor are you a political policy-maker. You are the professional skeptic, the one who must ask the questions no one else is asking, and who reports the news even if it is painful.
There is a lot of talk around America these days that the normal journalist’s role of reporting flaws and disagreements in U.S. government policies should end, now that the war against Iraq is underway. Some believe that raising questions about the basis and roll-out of this U.S. attack on Iraq is unpatriotic and endangers the lives of our military. But I believe that history teaches us just the opposite lesson: questioning the basis and the methods of waging war is essential if democracy is to work. Only through scrutiny can government be held accountable. Our nation especially should understand this lesson, after the painful experience of our war in Vietnam.
Many Americans join others around the world in raising questions about this war. Some are concerned that it may actually do more harm than good, by inciting more anti-American terrorism and instability in the world. These critics are sobered by the fact that this war is exactly what Bin Laden was hoping for. He wanted to ignite a global conflict that looked as if America was an imperialist evil empire, waging a crusade against the Muslim world. Using all the might of the world’s only superpower, without the support of the United Nations and our historic allies, we seem to have taken Bin Laden’s bait. Yet those who point out these problems are declared persona non grata by many fellow Americans.
What is the role of the journalist in such a time of national crisis? Because the critics within our political system are being intimidated and vilified by those who think any dissent is inappropriate, it is more important than ever for someone to ask the tough questions. To report what is actually happening. To hold officials accountable. That is always the role of the journalist.
To be sure, there are special rules that apply when one’s own nation is on the battlefield. One rule is that journalists don’t endanger a military operation that is underway. They don’t report in real time (unless given the green light by the military) on troops in motion, or reveal battle plans in advance. They balance the public’s need to know with the military’s need to hold some things secret, at least for a time.
I agree with the Committee of Concerned Journalists’ advice about the journalist’s role in this time of war:
“Act as a professional observer, providing citizens with the information they need to understand and evaluate the situation and their own safety for themselves. That often means providing people with information they may find difficult to hear. This implies that just as a doctor or lawyer helps make our society work by taking on unpopular but vital roles, providing this information is how a journalist expresses his or her patriotism, his or her commitment to the U.S.”
This means that American journalists are properly doing their jobs by helping Americans understand foreign responses to the U.S. position. They must help us understand who we are fighting against, even if this means spending time with the enemy. They must report on errors by U.S. commanders in the battlefield, which could possibly save lives next time. Airing criticism of how the war is administered is not unpatriotic, and is not an expression of disloyalty to the U.S. military. Quite the contrary, it is protecting them from giving their lives in vain, in conflicts that are ill-conceived or poorly executed.
On Oct. 17, 2001, when Ted Koppel presented a program on ABC Television’s “Nightline” about bio-terrorism and anthrax attacks at the Capitol, he anticipated concern from his audience about whether he should be discussing these matters. “Let me ask you to briefly consider a world in which we essentially shut down our information-gathering process,” he said at the outset of the show. “In most countries of the world the…government decides what is in the national interest and the media disseminate the information…You may find yourselves wondering tonight…whether that might not be a safer, more reassuring environment. But be careful of what you wish for. Americans are accustomed to knowing what is going on in their world and bad news is a necessary part of that. It is how we analyze our problems, how we find solutions, but above all, it is also how our public officials often are held accountable.”
Many patriotic Americans have not spoken out because we want to support our President and our men and women in uniform. Others are simply confused and scared. Just as antiwar demonstrations started to gain attention around the world, our government declared Code Orange, and advised us seal ourselves in our homes with plastic sheets and duct tape.
Now the March 17 deadline for war is at hand, and we must finally speak up, as former president Jimmy Carter did today. Mr. Bush, we are not a focus group. We are hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of America’s most attentive and loyal citizens, using the best tools that our democracy allows. We urge you, as strongly as we can, to regroup. Do not open this Pandora’s box in Iraq.
Whatever happens on the ground in Iraq, it is not going to resolve what is really endangering America. CIA director George Tenet and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have both warned that this attack on Iraq will actually reduce our security as a nation, by fueling more terrorism against Americans.
In a breathtakingly short time, you have reversed the sympathies of most people post 9/11 and obliterated America’s true source of security—our over 200-year contribution to the world as a beacon for freedom, justice and truth. We have gone from being the world’s most favored nation, to its most hated one. We may end up turning Saddam from a monster into a martyr.
Your military bravado, your defiance of the United Nations and other international alliances that have been struggling successfully to contain an unruly world since World War 2, and your arrogant dismissal of treaties regarding international justice and the environment have contributed to a global backlash against America. Many people around the world see this defiance of the international community as worse than the defiance of Saddam Hussein, because we, too, flaunt international agreements, but we have far more weapons of mass destruction than he does.
The Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq war resolution because it was a way to support America’s bid for an international coalition. That bid has failed. Because you do not understand the complexities of world power, you have left us isolated and vulnerable. It is not too late for you to lead effective multilateral efforts to contain both Iraq and North Korea, discrediting both regimes with incremental military pressure accompanied by a global campaign for democracy and justice, including aid to poorer nations. That will win us respect, instead of enmity. If instead you go forward as planned, with an all-out “shock attack” on Iraq, you will surely inspire more recruits to the terrorists’ cause. Our children will face generations of anti-American suicide bombers at home and abroad, and an economy crippled by this $95 billion mistake.
Please, Mr. Bush, turn back before it is too late. You are holding a lighted match to the tinderbox of the world.
Ellen Hume
Excerpts from Ellen Hume’s essay in Harvard’s “Nieman Reports,” reviewing Todd Gitlin’s new book, Media Unlimited.
“…To Gitlin, ‘media’ aren’t really about journalism at all, or anything real. They are an alternative universe, a parade of surrogate experiences and disposable feelings, delivered through films, television, music, radio, advertising, print publishing, cell phones and computer games…Everything is made to be taken lightly, and to pass by quickly. We are zombies, strapped into roller coasters. Part of the thrill is the speed of the media ride…
“…Gitlin’s discovery of hedonism is as old as time, but so is every generation’s search for meaning. People keep stepping in front of the Tiananmen tank, challenging the abuses of power. If the media content providers aren’t part of that alternative, something else—like the Taliban—will be. “Unless we are prepared to make demands on one another, we can enjoy only the most rudimentary kind of common life,” the late Christopher Lasch warned….
“…Journalism remains important around the world, even if its commercial values isn’t amortized properly by most media companies. It has been the tortoise to Gitlin’s speeding hare. Some of the best and worst journalists in the world are inciting action every day, in more desperate corners of the globe and even here at home…Reporters are getting killed in record numbers, not just by terrorists in Pakistan, but by their own governments and by people who fear their power. ..
“…Bad content does have an impact…Gitlin emphasizes that the media are not driven by some megalomaniac American supercorporation, trying to impose its ideology, but by the drive for audience numbers, the need to be popular. They “have no cultural commitment whatsoever,” Gitlin says. The problem is, he thinks that’s reassuring. Unfortunately, collateral damage can be just as destructive as a deliberate assault.”
America’s disappearing audience for serious news came back after Sept. 11 to give the newspapers, television and radio another chance. These millions of people are interested, more than ever, in straight talk about real problems and what needs to be done. But despite all the valiant work of journalists on dangerous assignments, this newly attentive public is being jilted again by American television executives.
If you wonder why America is clueless about the culture war that inspires our foreign enemies, just check out ABC’s latest idea that David Letterman’s entertainment show should replace Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” news program. “Nightline” is one of the few national programs that responsibly examine the issues we face. Letterman is wonderful, but he doesn’t pretend to provide the information people need to understand what is happening to them.
Koppel’s “Nightline” is actually a commercial success; it attracts four million viewers a night, as the Letterman show does. But these viewers apparently have something else on their minds than just their own pleasure, which is a drag for ABC’s advertisers. The older news audience is less profitable than the younger entertainment audience; this is why ABC is considering dumping “Nightline” for the Letterman comedy show. Many television executives act as if the news is whatever emerges from a hundred public relations campaigns. Television is only for selling, whether it’s products or propaganda. This kind of thinking also inspired the now-discredited Pentagon Office of Strategic Initiatives, which was expecting to lie to the foreign press as part of its news service.
Having the Pentagon bar American journalists from most of the war zone has not helped. ABC’s entertainment division is getting better access to the U.S. military than its news division, in order to present the Pentagon’s version of the war in a new ABC “reality series.” Perhaps Letterman will sprinkle his jokes with some dispatches from the front.
To be sure, ABC is not alone in blowing this opportunity to elevate the news. The average 30-minute evening newscast offers only 17 minutes of news and before 9/11, Dan Rather on CBS was told not to use the word “foreign” on air because his bosses are worried that it may turn off viewers, according to Len Downey and Robert Kaiser of the Washington Post. We still aren’t learning much from CNN or others about what the rest of the world is doing or thinking; international news seems to relate only to America’s war on terrorism. Not since Nuremburg has an international court of justice taken on an accused war criminal like Slobodan Milosevic; Americans had a lot to do with bringing about his prosecution for genocide, yet one searches America’s 500 television channels in vain for any tape of his trial in The Hague.
Each morning, CNN’s catch of the year, Paula Zahn, engages in obsequious chats with American generals assigned to boost our morale, or she badgers guests who seem to know a lot more than she does. She might as well be trying on fashions or singing with children the way former “Sixty Minutes” reporter Diane Sawyer does on Good Morning America. NBC has been criticized for years for reducing its news to personal issues of health or family life. Fox’s news network has filled a niche by offering a more conservative ideology, but studies confirm that it isn’t the “fair and balanced” news source that it claims to be.
If ABC abandons “Nightline,” it will be a major loss to the search for useful information about the real challenges we now face as a nation. ABC executives will join all the others who shrug off their public obligations, saying the health of American democracy is “not my problem” while they pocket a bigger bonus. But the quality of America’s public life IS their problem, because they have a franchise to run the public’s airwaves, and because television is still our national source of information and our first line of attack in the battle for world opinion. If we treat America’s news flow as if it’s a national joke, how surprised should we be if our bashers get the last laugh?
“Like Bosnia was before it, Afghanistan will probably be carved up into journalistic fiefdoms by local powers with an interest in keeping enmity alive, further fragmenting the country’s fragile society. So far, international efforts have focused on broadcasting news reported by non-Afghans…these efforts may do some good, but they will also soak up enormous amounts of precious aid…What Afghans need most from their journalists is not explanations from the outside world and its views, but reliable information and honest debate within their own society.”
-Anthony Borden and Edward Girardet, New York Times
“If you think covering the war is hard…try covering peace.”
-AP foreign editor Nate Polowetzky (in 1994)
“Reporters are like soldiers. The less they know, the longer they live.”
-Croatian militiaman, quoted in Nieman Reports, Winter 1999-Spring 2000.
“Freedom of the press, like any rights, costs money.”
-Prof. Stephen Kotkin, Russian history professor at Princeton University.
Despite these sobering observations, there is some hope that pluralistic, professional journalism will emerge from the rubble of Afghanistan. Internews, a non-profit NGO that has done much to revive journalism in the post-Communist world, has recently received a grant from the US government to develop a decentralized, independent radio and television network in Afghanistan. They will be working with the Afghan Media Resource Center, which has been the locus of non-Taliban, Afghan journalists since 1986. They will try to neutralize the impact of the kind of factional media that plague other conflict zones, continuing to incite violence. I have been impressed with Internews as I have been working with them on another new project: figuring out how media policies (laws and official practices) might be improved around the world to enable greater freedom of expression and access to information. Internews’ Open Media Campaign aims to collaborate with existing free expression organizations in a sustained effort that is being designed from the ground up in participating countries.
