In my last column, I argued that the national media have placed too much emphasis on anthrax, whipping the nation into a frenzy of anxiety. I still feel that Americans need much more reporting on the war in Afghanistan where American forces are operating with increasing risk and facing the mounting pressure of civilian deaths.
The war is being covered, of course, but I’m not particularly impressed with the coverage that is currently being done. And I’m not alone.
A group of 250 communications scholars recently sent constructive criticism to the senior producers and vice presidents of all major U.S. broadcast and cable news stations. Peace activists, academics who study the Middle East and other progressive voices are missing in news coverage and dialogue about the Sept. 11 attack and its aftermath, the group said. The major U.S. news media relies too heavily on the U.S. government to set its agenda during these times, playing on the emotion of the times rather than initiating thoughtful discourse.
The U.S. media, meanwhile, keeps clamoring for more information from the government on the war in Afghanistan and against terrorism. This communiqu seems to say, “Hey guys, you don’t need advanced information about troop movements in Afghanistan. You need to look deeper into the issues of how we got here, how we get out with our national security in hand, and how we might avoid getting into this situation again.”
Of course, any suggestion that news organizations depart from the party line during wartime can be twisted to seem unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, I believe. The more critical the coverage, the more opportunity Americans have to make informed decisions about the direction of our country. That’s the American way, after all. Allowing the government to tell us that they know best, that we shouldn’t be burdened with thinking about complex international issues, that we should simply support any action during a time of crisis -that’s communism.
“Uncritical media coverage of issues from Central America to the Gulf War has facilitated U.S. foreign policies that I believe most Americans would reject if they were better informed,” said Rosalind Bresnahan, assistant professor of Communication Studies at California State University, San Bernardino.
“The American people aren’t stupid,” said Donald Shores, professor of broadcasting at Pepperdine University, but they do need “accurate and complete information.”
As a result of the limited perspective currently offered by major national news media in the U.S., more Americans are turning to foreign news sources these days, an option made possible with the Internet. A segment on NPR’s Morning Edition last week featured interviews with several people who turn to online publications such as London’s liberal Guardian, which has seen 600,000 more American visitors since Sept. 11, and the more conservative Daily Observer, which has welcomed 500,000 new American visitors during the same time. The Canadian Broadcasting Channel, meanwhile, has received five times more e-mail from Americans since Sept. 11.
(On a side note, the British Broadcasting Corp. last week won the top Online Journalism Award for best online news service, beating out The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC. (See press release here.)
So what’s missing from national network news that forces people to turn to international sources? Mostly, any analyst not affiliated with the U.S. government. It seems logical that the experts sought by news organizations be former military personnel. But that’s only one source of expertise. There are scholars and think tanks that pour incredible amounts of time into the study of these complex international issues and now is the perfect time to turn to them.
One topic I would like to see explored is how our country’s dependence on foreign oil has contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. Our foreign policy has come under question, but outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our approach to the Middle East is centered on protecting the flow of oil to the U.S. During the Gulf War, I remember the public openly questioning the U.S. decision to wage a war based on oil interests, but this new war was likely started for the same reason. The terrorists want U.S. troops out of the Middle East, but oil is the ultimate reason they’re there. Now that war has been brought to our shores, maybe the nation is ready to consider drastic lifestyle changes that would greatly reduce our reliance on foreign oil. If the nation is ready, apparently the media is not.
Friday night I attended a public forum in Seattle featuring several online journalists from Slate.com, including editor Michael Kinsley. The focus centered more on policy and politics than critiquing the media’s coverage, but Jacob Weisberg said he has changed tack since Sept. 11. Weisberg, Washington, D.C. correspondent and inventor of “Bushisms,” said he is now less flippant when discussing the decisions and statements of the president. That is the kind of patriotic response I respect from the media. No, it’s not the right time to ridicule our public leaders for the inconsequential issues that make the front page during election season. But it is the right time to be critical of the decisions being made, to fully explore all the options and explain why national, ethnic, religious and even gender issues make some options more feasible than others.
I agree that Americans are not stupid and I think it’s time that network news programs start to reflect that.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.