|
 |
 |
|
We Asked; You Said
We asked: With numerous journalists "embedded" with U.S., British, and Australian troops in the war zone in and around Iraq, the news media face the daily challenge of balancing journalistic opportunity with concern for the security of military personnel. The dilemma is not new. In 1989, ABC's Peter Jennings and CBS's Mike Wallace were asked, "In a future war involving U.S. soldiers, what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit?" Wallace responded that, ideally, journalists would "regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings initially indicated that his first move would be to "do what I could to warn the Americans." But after hearing Wallace's comments, he changed his response, admitting, "I think [Wallace is] right . . . I chickened out." What are your thoughts? Here are the responses we received. *********************************************************** The Wallace-Jennings response illustrates the problem with using hypothetical cases to discuss ethics. Journalists use absolutist rhetoric in conversation but are utilitarian in practice. In real life, neither Wallace nor Jennings would have hesitated to do what was necessary to protect American lives. Paraphrasing George Washington, "When we assumed the journalist, we did not lay aside the citizen.” Journalists in World War II followed that maxim. The postmodern drift toward rejection of all authority has weakened it, but, when there's a real war, we remember who we really are. Philip Meyer While no interface between journalists and events is ever perfect, and always subject to serious distortions, since the transmission of information is never transparent, I believe the embedded journalists are a positive thing, on balance. If embedded journalists were the only source of information about Iraq, this would be a travesty. Journalists occupy a range of positions in the coverage of Iraq and all are useful for their particular perspectives. If the Pentagon had refused to allow journalists to accompany the troops there would have been a serious outcry and rightly so. Embedded journalists have a critical but not comprehensive view of their own small slice of the war. It is worth remembering, moreover, that a military that invites embedded journalists does not believe its soldiers will be committing war crimes, and this is not an insignificant expectation. Reporters have a range of skills and perspectives of their own. They do not necessarily surrender their sense of critical detachment simply by being with the troops. It is a familiar situation for reporters to be close to those they cover. Some become sympathetic and some retain their critical distance. Both have something to offer with their perspectives. I believe the Pentagon has rightly realized that a professional army is in danger of becoming ever more estranged from the civilian community that is critical to its conduct. The civilian community and the military community are two communities that need to be familiar with each other's perspectives and problems. This is an important move in creating that necessary exchange. For all its risks, I support the embeddedness of journalists with the military. Carolyn Marvin 1989 is a long time ago, and Wallace and Jennings were reacting to different wars and different rules for covering them. In 1991, the Pentagon reported Gulf War I; this time it embedded the reporters - and so deeply that in a couple of cases, the reporters had to grab weapons and help defend the unit and themselves. The Wallace-Jennings response can be debated again once the Pentagon decides to free journalists from being embedded. I would hope that at the same time, the Pentagon, the White House and other government agencies would dis-embed the beat correspondents who cover it, thus reducing the pressure on them to report White House propaganda. Herbert J. Gans As the CNN controversy underscored recently, journalists are (and should be) ethical human beings first, journalists second. The obligation to warn/rescue/save another human being (whether American or not) should always take priority over a story, and I think it would for most seasoned journalists. So I think Jennings was right in his first instinctive "chicken" response, not Wallace (and I believe Mike Wallace would also put human values over journalistic ones if he were really in that situation). Mary Pitman Kitch My own thoughts are that "journalism" has, for the most part, ceased to exist in the U.S. in the way in which we have used that term previously. "Journalists" today are more accurately called government (especially White House) stenographers, dutifully recording whatever lies they are told and repeating them as news. The whole notion of covering the invasion of Iraq with the persistent title OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM shows how far we have come from objective reporting. If the Soviet Union had possessed the control over its media that Bush has here, it never would have fallen. Mark S. Brodin I think the journalists haven't sorted this out thoroughly enough, a sign that they really aren't as serious about journalistic ethics as they want us to believe. This case is easily resolved. The American journalists should not place themselves in positions where this situation is likely to arise. Rather, they should contract with independent journalists from other countries to supply them with behind-the-scenes-with-the-enemy reporting. This is common practice, and Jennings/Wallace know it. Rick Green Gee, it's good to see that case again! For those who'd like to know more about the exchange, it's on tape 7 of the Ethics in America series (available from 1-800-LEARNER, I think), and is presented on page 178 of the Study Guide for that series. (That's the first edition. The second edition is in press right now, Prentice Hall 2003). I discuss it on pp 181-182 of the Study Guide. Incidentally, the journalists were presented with dilemmas all through that series; Fred Friendly, a journalist himself, was fascinated by the ethical problems of the profession. The question itself is difficult to answer. I think Wallace was right, and that Jennings was right in correcting himself to agree with Wallace. The analogy is that of the physician; you are brought behind enemy lines and find yourself asked to treat the head of the Intelligence units, a nasty bunch that torture Americans when they catch them and essentially direct the troops. Taking him out would be a major contribution to the war effort. If you treat him properly, he will live and be back in action in two days. But you can poison him, subtly, so that he'll appear to get better, you'll be allowed to return to your own lines, and then he'll die three days later and they'll never even know you did it. What should you do? The doctors I ask (most of them) say they'll treat him so he'll get well, because that's their job. Journalists the same. Lisa Newton I believe that one has the responsibility to do one's job--however, at what cost? If our job takes precedence over the responsibility that one human has to another, then we have reduced our humanity to second place. Jennifer Mabry The problem with the Rather/Jennings position is that both assume they are the above-the-fray, rather godlike conveyers of simple facts and, thus, not to be sullied by such bourgeois notions as patriotism nor such morality as saving lives. The reality, of course (emphatically so for these two) is that any human, even such a rarefied species as homo reporteris, is simply crammed with prejudices, the most harmful of which is that he or she has no prejudices and has been chosen by God or the fates or sui generis to the holy task of reporting "the news." Thus, the idea of not cheapening or coarsening the Rather/Jennings gift leads to the silly quotes cited. And for evidence of hypocrisy, note the fatuous, powerpuff interview of Saddam by friend Dan and pretty much any reporting on Dubya by Pete. Ken Search While there are long term consequences to departing from one's assigned neutral role, the sound bite answers are not that easy or helpful. One is first a human being and secondly an occupant of a professional position. The answers get more cloudy as you use more direct examples. If a news photographer is standing at the bank of a river taking pictures within arm's reach of a drowning person, does she first take the photograph and let the person be swept away? Or does she drop the camera, her profession, reach down to save the fellow human being? In the example given to Wallace and Jennings, perhaps the better answer is . . ."It all depends." A. Frederick Bahr When I first heard about Wallace's and Jenning's comments, about a month ago, my first response was, "Those two should be executed for treason." That is still my predominant opinion on the issue, but with further consideration, I can see that the issue is not quite so simple as it seemed at first. For instance, if the reporter contacts the U.S. military and the American forces avoid the attack, the enemy forces may realize who leaked the information and will certainly kick the reporter out . . . or worse. And what if these same enemy forces, after our roving reporter has been executed, later reveal plans to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City. The reporter can now no longer warn of this even deadlier plan. Of course, the question now arises whether the reporter, hearing of the nuclear bomb plan, would report that threat, or simply treat it as another news item; and by extension, the question becomes, "Is there a certain degree of threat which would cause even Mike Wallace to tip American forces off, and if so, where is the dividing line?" Our fearless reporter could also wonder, faced by such information, whether the information is true or if it is a test to see whether the reporter would pass the information on to American forces; in which case, if he did so, he might be executed for nothing! I would also like to put Mike Wallace to the test. In this age of the Internet, news dissemination can be practically instantaneous. If the planned surprise attack were scheduled for 6 hours later at the time Mike learns about it, he could maintain his precious journalistic integrity by reporting to his network headquarters immediately, as presumably his news standards require anyway, and the news could be reported over the Internet with plenty of time for American forces to pick up on it and act accordingly. Knowing this, would Mike report his news immediately, knowing it would tip off American forces, or would he betray his journalistic integrity and sit on the news until it was too late, just so he would have an even bigger news item to report later, namely a bloody attack on American forces? I could go on and on like this with endless "what if" speculations, but I keep coming back to my original response. It seems to me that Mike Wallace is first, a human being; second, an American citizen; and only third, a news reporter. The first two qualities demand that he do what he can to warn American forces of an impending attack. The second quality makes failure to do so a treasonable action. Mike is placing a third level ethical priority over first and second level ethical priorities. If he were to do what he says he would do, he should properly be executed for treason and then he would never again have to worry about his precious journalistic integrity being compromised. Let's face it, Mike, you blew it this time. Jim Flechtner Any civilian who mixes with enemy troops must realize that he or she is liable to be under attack from our side. Similarly, such a reporter would presumably be warned by the enemy troops not to attempt to listen in on conversations concerning (enemy) plans for attack. The enemy's troops would (rightly) want to kill any reporter they thought was revealing their plans to the other side, and would probably take precautions not to inform the reporter about their plans. This therefore seems to be a case of knowingly putting yourself in harm's way in order to get a good story, and should be a risk taken on by both the reporter and the enemy troops. Charles Freifeld Here are several important points raised in this scenario. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is: Who, exactly, is the "enemy"? And why are they regarded as such? Let me get to the bottom line quickly: Both Iraqi *and* American soldiers (using the most recent conflict as an example), as well as the people who are commanding them, are deeply confused, generally heartless, uneducated, unenlightened, juveniles in adult bodies. On the Iraqi side (the "enemy" from our point of view), you have basically poor, uneducated, immature recruits who have either been coerced into service, or have been brought up in such a way that they take as completely normal that their lives must be dedicated to unwavering loyalty and service to a vengeful, violent, fanatical leader. On the American side (the "enemy" of the Iraqis), you have pretty much the same thing, except perhaps that the soldiers haven't been coerced (though, the situation might be different if we were under attack), and our fanatical leader is not quite as blatantly brutal as theirs. (This last point is debatable, however. Saddam did gas people, but he never engaged in carpet bombing of foreign nations, cruise missile "shock and awe" attacks on heavily populated cities outside his borders, bunker busting the sides off of mountains, etc.) The truly responsible journalist would first of all make sure that his or her own safety was secured, so that he could continue with his work. Beyond that, his highest responsibility would be to see to it that all who cared to listen were fully informed of every detail of the inhuman activity that the armed participants were carrying out - every detail of the slaughter. In particular, the reporters should be sending back pictures - live if possible - of people being ripped apart by bullets and bombs; of the screams of agony of men having hands and legs blown off; of the wails of mothers who discover the lifeless body of their son or daughter; of the crying of children, wandering without parents or homes. Let's put names and human faces to the faceless "enemies."Do background stories on them. Interview their families. Find out where and how they live. What are their cultures, their traditions, their hopes and dreams? And then put names and faces to the people who are pressing the buttons and releasing the missiles that blow these hopes and dreams into bits. Let's connect the "heroes" with their victims. Security of military personnel? The very idea that security should be equated with the military is another of the many wrong-headed notions that have persisted for centuries in our supposedly civilized, Western world. The mere presence of the military - indeed, their mere *existence* - implies that the community is IN-secure. Force and fear rule the world, and the U.S., as powerful as it is, rather than showing restraint, intelligence and enlightenment, is setting the worst possible example with its invasions, its bombings, and its bullying of smaller countries. We are *inviting* acts of revenge by terrorists with our policy of forceful domination. Our arrogance, our violent, ready-to-strike posture sets us up perfectly for more attacks like the one that took place on 9/11. Al Gabis, Jr. |
|
The Communitarian Network |