Boston's Alternative Source! image!
   
Feedback

[Don't Quote Me]
Pens and swords
In covering the war on terrorism, the media must contend with military censorship, the public’s distrust — and their own timidity

BY DAN KENNEDY


AS THE COUNTRY lurches into a frightening and uncertain war against terrorism, the news media find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult position: wedged between a White House that would prefer to wage war in secret and a public that loathes the press.

President Bush, in his address to Congress, made it clear that the coming military campaign — which may have already begun — will depend heavily on covert operations whose existence will remain hidden "even in success." At his side are Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, two of the principal architects of military censorship during the 1991 Gulf War. And the public, which has conferred upon Bush a 90 percent approval rating in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, can invariably be counted on to support the military against the media when it comes to what journalists still plaintively call "the public’s right to know." Witness last Friday’s report in USA Today that American and British special-operations units were already in Afghanistan — a report that some disparaged as irresponsible even though the news had already been carried in the Pakistani press.

Yet it’s vital that we learn as much as possible about this war, which will, after all, be waged in our name, on our behalf. "Precisely because of the amorphous nature of this campaign as it has been described so far, the American people really need to be more informed rather than less informed," says Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the Freedom Forum. "An open society is supposedly what we’re fighting for. That is not to say that our leaders do not have to have some latitude for getting things done. But secrecy for secrecy’s sake has to be resisted."

What we need is as much information, and as open and robust a debate, as possible. Unfortunately, what we may get is a press that is both hampered by military censorship and cowed by its fear of offending the public and the government.

The logistics of covering the war on terrorism could prove to be nightmarish. Unlike the Gulf War, which had a clearly defined enemy and battleground, the war on terrorism is more an idea than a concrete reality, with even administration officials reportedly disagreeing on who, other than Osama bin Laden, should be targeted. This new war could be fought in many countries — including the United States — and is exceedingly unlikely to feature any set battles that the media could observe.

The media must also deal with a White House dominated by Cheney, Powell, and George W. Bush, whose views of how to handle the press in wartime were shaped by the highly successful censorship campaign during the Gulf War. Ever since the Vietnam War — lost, according to critics, because the media turned the public against it — the Pentagon has managed to keep reporters at bay. Reporters were kept away from much of the action in the invasion of Grenada, in 1984, and in the capture of Panamanian ruler Manuel Noriega, in 1989.

In attempting to avoid a similar information blackout, media representatives and the Pentagon worked out a protocol for the Gulf War under which a press pool would be allowed to observe the fighting, and their reports would be subject to military censorship. As it turned out, the pool reporters saw little, and what the public saw was shaped largely by the daily briefings given by top government and military officials. Viewers were treated to video-game-like footage of so-called smart weapons finding their targets — they saw an antiseptic war that appeared devoid of dead bodies or suffering of any kind.

At the heart of the military-media conundrum is the assumption that the media will reveal secrets that put operations and troops in harm’s way. This image of reporters as dangerous blunderers was lampooned in a classic Saturday Night Live sketch during the Gulf War in which journalists were depicted asking military officials questions such as "Where would you say our forces are most vulnerable to attack?" and "Are we planning an amphibious invasion of Kuwait? And if so, where?"

But University of Arizona journalism professor Jacqueline Sharkey, the author of Under Fire: US Military Restrictions on the Media from Grenada to the Persian Gulf (Center for Public Integrity, 1991), says the history of wartime reportage shows that such worries are misplaced. During World War II, she notes, a number of reporters knew when and where D-Day would take place, yet none revealed those details. During the Vietnam War, she adds, thousands of journalists passed through, yet only nine were ever accused of security violations. Besides, Sharkey says, journalists who tag along on military operations could be required to withhold certain types of information until the security of the operation is no longer at risk. What’s important, she says, is that journalists accompany troops so that there is an objective, independent account of what happened, regardless of when it is released. Otherwise, she argues, the lack of media access will be used "not for military purposes but for political purposes" — to cover up mistakes rather than protect lives and operations.

 

page 1  page 2 

Issue Date: October 4 - 11, 2001






home | feedback | about the phoenix | find the phoenix | advertising info | privacy policy


© 2002 Phoenix Media Communications Group