|
Media Panel Ponders Dilemmas of Reporting Conflicts
By Farkunda Ali
WASHINGTON, Nov 1 (IslamOnline) - Various U.S. media corporations are facing a dilemma of attempting to curb criticism of the administration of George W. Bush amid a resurgence of patriotism, while also trying to report objectively about the current U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
This was the focus of panel discussion held Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, entitled, "The Role of the Press: Lessons of Wars Past."
"The press reflects opinions," said Stanley Karnow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former chief correspondent for Time and Life magazines. "There is a lot of patriotism and we're not questioning things."
Panelists said that while U.S. media outfits are influential in shaping public opinion, reporting of conflicts also play a pivotal role in how Americans formulate their positions toward war.
They added that during a national crisis, the government shifts its position from advocating freedom of information to increasing censorship over the flow of information. In the past, government officials have argued that national security is of greater importance than the public's right to know.
"In order to maintain a morale, the military will have a bodyguard of lies to protect the truth," said Daniel Schorr, senior news analyst for National Public Radio. "In World War II, correspondents were [not] critical of [the] U.S. government's role and they didn't have to be censored."
Schorr added that it was critical to understand the way in which the government controls the information it gives to reporters during wartime to avoid leaking important information to their enemies.
Ted Koppel, host of ABC TV's "Nightline," said technology has had a significant impact on the way in which news is covered. Unlike the Vietnam War, Koppel said journalists have to be prepared to broadcast immediately through the satellite.
The Internet, according to Koppel, was created by the military to be able to communicate during war and survive nuclear attacks.
But some of the panelists said the new technology, along with the changing nature of recent conflicts, have altered some of the previous rules about covering war.
In World War II, correspondents knew which side they were on. However, this war on Afghanistan is different from previous wars because it has not been formally declared.
In Vietnam, correspondents were free to write what they felt was accurate and there was no control over the distribution of information. The panelist said that this situation eventually led to the public's distrust of the U.S. government.
"Vietnam was an open war," said Barry Zorthain, retired Vice President of Time, Inc.
The panelists, experiencing the trends of news media through the Vietnam, Korean and Gulf wars, agreed that Americans must learn from the past wars.
It is essential to understand, they added, that restrictions cannot be placed on media in order for the people to receive an accurate representation of the destruction in Afghanistan. In addition, criticism of the government does not justify the questioning anyone's allegiance to his or her country.
"The right to ask questions on tactics of the U.S. should not be considered unpatriotic," said Peter Arnett, a former CNN foreign correspondent. The major concern for the media today, he added, is the monopoly of various networks and media corporations that manipulate news budgets.
The panelists criticized the increasing mergers of media organizations into a few large corporations, which they argued are providing easy access for the government to express its views.
In addition, some panelists said today's media differs greatly from news agencies of the past because of the resources resulting from corporate mergers.
According to Koppel, the news budget for major commercial networks increased from $5 million in the 1960s to the current estimate of a half-billion dollars.
"These days, news agencies are expected to make profits not for political reasons," added Koppel, "but for economic reasons."
|
