Media follows patriotic spirit
By MARIBEL MOREY
Assistant News Editor
The American media has shared the country's patriotic sentiments as it follows the country's steps towards a war. But these media outlets have spent little time on whether or not the country is taking the right course of action.
"You haven't seen a lot of diversity in perspective from mainstream corporate media outlets,' said Jennifer Pozner, women's desk director at FAIR who has focused on anti-Arab bias coverage and censorship in the press. "In general, the overview has seemed in lockstep with the White House and what that line has been. You haven't seen a lot of variation.'
In an act deemed patriotic by Condoleezza Rice, White House national security advisor, the five major television news organizations reached a joint agreement on Wednesday to abridge any future videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden or his followers if the government deems the language inflammatory.
These networks include ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, the Cable News Network (CNN) and the Fox News Channel.
Local and national newspapers and TV media have not been very critical of the government's actions, said Sam Husseini, communications director for the Institute for Public Accuracy.
"Most of CNN's news coverage is going from one government news conference to another. That already takes out a substantial chunk of what they're doing," he said. "They'll cover the press briefing with Ashcroft and Powell and when Bush says something they'll cover that. Then they'll have their correspondent talk about what you heard. They hardly bring in a policy critic to scrutinize what the government has just said."
The people who could talk about demilitarization, peace, international law tribunals and the ways the world deem as appropriate means for bringing terrorists to justice have not been very visible — with few exceptions, said Pozner.
"Look at the people they're sourcing. The people who get quoted and who are writing op-eds are military workers, people who are higher ups in government and people who worked for the CIA in the 80s," she said.
Greg Downey, assistant anthropology professor, would elaborate and conclude that the media is under the same pressure that most Americans are in.
"Questioning the administration's policy is treated as though one is questioning the existence or the justice of the United States," he said. "Saying that we should talk about this is akin to saying that the terrorism is justified."
Pozner agreed.
"You become very quickly judged unpatriotic if you don't follow the government's party line in times of war. Nothing can be farthest from the truth. It's journalists' primary function to inform the public and give the public sufficient information," she said. "Critical, independent journalism — that's not only important, but it's also patriotic."
Many print and TV media groups have not been very critical of the administration. "Media was pulling the politicians into more radical positions because the interviewers wanted more radical positions and more clearer language to report," said Downey. "When John McCain was interviewed, he said that we need to really just look at this [terrorist attack] — and he's a war veteran. But the reporters kept saying, "don't we have to show these people that we're still strong?'"
In light of the country's recent decisions to bomb Afghanistan, little critic has been aroused across the country.
"Even in op-ed pages, you haven't seen a real debate about what the Bush policy is," said Husseini.
However, Husseini would say that the media coverage has been surprisingly sterile. "There was some human side, but I was surprised how detached some of the journalists were," he said.
Journalists, however, also find it difficult to find sources in a time of war.
"I think most of the networks are pretty similar in many ways because it's very hard for western news networks to get that news and they rely on the same sources," said Downey.
For economic or political reasons, few media sources have the means to send correspondents to places such as the Middle East. Therefore, these sources rely on other media groups, such as the Associated Press or Reuters for information.
"You end up repeating the same thing — a national chorus where everyone is singing the same words," he said.
Reuters has taken an unpopular step and has refused to use the term "terrorist" in describing the events of Sept. 11.
"I think that might be a rather tortured way of avoiding the reality. In a way, you're gently trying to cushion the language and to avoid calling those who did what they did seems misguided," said Bob Schmuhl, director of the John W. Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics and Democracy. "I think it's wrong and I think particularly in this case, to call the people involved freedom fighters is a rather bizarre use of that phrase ."
Faced with a story of this magnitude, many media groups grapple with the task. The New York Times, for example, has added a new section "A Nation Challenged' in response to the attacks.
"We've seen is an all-out approach that reflects not only a large national and international story but also a local one," Schmuhl said. "To think that a newspaper would devote an entire section for a full month and more to a ongoing story is pretty remarkable."
The government as a source has become another obstacle for the media. The White House said that this war where information security is critical. Therefore, all information may not released.
"Whenever you contemplate media coverage of terrorism and war you have to see them in context,' Pozner said. "When those stories have White House sources, you have to look at them with a grain of salt — they've said they're going to lie."
The media has concentrated on the victims in New York and Washington, but little information has been related about the victims in Afghanistan.
"There doesn't seem to be an interest in the loss of life going on in Afghanistan,' said Husseini. "There was an overwhelming humanization of the victims of Sept. 11th and it's pretty startling that there's not even an attempt to do that with the victims of the ongoing attacks.'
Americans seem to know little about the air strikes victims in Afghanistan as the United States takes a more active role in the region. The Quatar-based Al Jazera, the largest major independent media network with the widest audience in the Arab world, has publicized Osama bin Ladan's statements.
"It's disturbing that the U.S. government is trying to get the government of Qatar to claim down on [Al Jazera]. A lot of Arab countries have tried to crash Al Jazera and it's kinda sad that the United States is following in its footsteps," said Husseini.
Just as the government is attempting to deter media coverage, media groups do not seem to challenge the government's unwillingness to give information.
"[The media] is intentionally holding back information when the White House tells them to hold back chunks of stories,' said Prozner. "Reporters might be giving in to this tight-lip approach to war coverage, but people don't have to. People can ask for broader, wider, more critical media coverage.'
Downey focuses on media's existence as a primarily profit-producing corporation. As news viewership increases, they will benefit directly from war coverage. Secondly, another problem with the coverage stems from journalists' training, said Downey.
"Rules of what they have for good sources of information and how skeptical to be about other sources of information," he said. "They also depend on the government for information because the government gives them information, compared to trying to find difficult to access alternative sources.'
As the government tightens the leaking of information, the media might find itself repeating the same information. "I think we'll just simply see less news and more rehashing of what we've already seen,' he said.
However, some information is purposefully leaked to alter public opinion. When the President was changing locations from one place to another immediately following the terrorist attacks, there was a leak about a possible threat.
"That phone call [threat] never happened. [The government] lied to show pressure off of Bush when people saw that it's not the best thing to be unfounded,' Prozner said.
Some leeks are printed specifically because the White House wants our opinions to be shifted, she said.
As the government refuses to give information and few American journalists are able to access Afghanistan, many Americans are left with few sources of information.
"I feel [independent media] offer me some alternative sources of information and alternative opinions and analysis," said Downey. "Which isn't to say that I accept everything I hear. I'm looking for a range of opinions, not the one opinion that I want to take as gospel."
Schmuhl believes the media, with time, will critique the occurrences. "As time goes on, we should all expect the media to return to a more questioning attitude."
Downey proposes taking a more active role as viewers and readers. "I don't think there's one answer to know for the future. It's the constant questioning that is the process that helps us to keep checking what we do," he said. "People think questioning undermines strength, but I think questioning is the only source of continued wisdom."
All News Stories for Thursday, October 11, 2001
