Some listeners continue to be angry with the state of American journalism in general and with NPR in particular in the coverage of the war on terrorism. What frustrates some listeners is NPR’s traditional journalistic approach of balanced reporting, even in wartime.
The criticism comes at a time when NPR and other media have done extraordinary work in explaining the conduct of this war and the changes that are now roiling the region.
A case in point was a recent report by NPR’s Ivan Watson on the liberation of Afghan women. Watson interviewed young women who spoke of their hope for the future now that the Taliban is gone. One said she would be an engineer. Another, a doctor. It was inspired and inspiring journalism.
This reporting comes at a time when journalists are under tremendous personal risk. As of this writing, eight journalists have been killed in in the seven-week-old war in Afghanistan… more than were killed in the Kosovo and Macedonia conflicts combined.
Even so, some listeners remain unmoved by the reporting:
‘Too Much Analysis?’
Greg Sheindlin is irate about NPR reporting on the details of the war since the attack on the World Trade Center:
To put it simply, Americans did nothing to be murdered in such a fashion. Nobody deserves to be murdered in such a fashion. Until you get it through your head no amount of “introspective analysis” will suffice. The gap between your deeply ingrained beliefs and ours will widen until defunding NPR will become a reality.
Jimmy Holsinger writes that in wartime, journalism has to change along with the rest of the country:
I have listened to NPR for years and sent money and now I am sorry I did. I did not believe my ears. All that anti-American garbage that has been spewing out over the air waves. I am going to do everything I can to let people know…your radio broadcasters should be held accountable for treason.
A Question of Control?
A still angry, but closely reasoned note comes from Jonathan Myer, a retired USAF colonel:
The real issue is one of CONTROL: Who is to determine just what should be published, how, and when? Further, who is to determine just what might be damaging to our “national security” (itself a blanket label) — over the short or long term? The military and its government overseers, with well-defined responsibilities for operational success and troop security, would rather say less; the “media,” wrapped in the mantle of First Amendment freedom and the so-called “public’s right to know,” would rather say more…
In the meantime, while granting that the media may indeed withhold some “critical” information (when specifically requested by the government), I as a former military officer with a little combat and many years of operational experience would rather see less revealed than more, and the government in the controlling position. The free flow of information may benefit our public, but it may benefit an enemy even more. To me, the potential risk to U.S. lives and national well-being outweighs any benefit of unrestricted publication.
Reporting This War, or the Last War?
Col. Myer’s thinking must send chills up the spines of First Amendment devotees. But Myer has a point and both journalists and critics are, in my opinion, slightly behind the times.
Circumstances have indeed changed. In World War I, the famous French Marshal Ferdinand Foch said, “the military mind always imagines that the next war will be the same as the last. That… never will be.” The same could be said for journalists. Reporting this war occasionally appears as if it were a replay of the Gulf War — and not just on NPR.
Journalists also spend much time thinking that we are following Clausewitz’ dictum that war is politics pursued by other means. This war is not just another political story (although there are important political dimensions).
That said, some critics and some journalists seem to have forgotten that the technology has changed the reporting of this story in a significant way: During the Gulf War, the Internet was barely functional. Military sources controlled information in a way that is impossible to contemplate now.
‘Journalistes Sans Frontieres?’
The Internet now means that journalism is more suspect and less controlled than ever. Indeed, we seem to be “journalists without borders” to some. And it’s not just the Internet that allows for a more highly mobile flow of information.
Every NPR reporter in Afghanistan is equipped with a satellite phone. The satellite phone is the size of a laptop computer and allows a reporter to file his or her story from the field. The sound quality is almost as good as a CD. And the “sat phone” weighs only 12 pounds. Fifteen years ago the original prototype weighed 130 pounds, requiring an engineer to operate it and two more to lug it off the planes.
Today’s “sat phones” are mobile, battery operated and can even be run by plugging them into a car’s cigarette lighter.
NPR can and does file from anywhere without benefit of media centers, military censorship or to the banditry of local phone company usage fees.
Al-Jazeera’s Influence
Finally the influence of the emerging Middle Eastern media is playing a role it never has before: Al-Jazeera is the first of the newly emerging media in the region. Al-Jazeera is the cable and satellite news service based in Doha, Qatar. It is the most politically independent journalistic organization in the region, bringing live reports from the Afghan front into the homes and cafes of millions of Arabic speakers around the world. Some may think it suspect, but it has influence in the Arab world in a way that CNN, VOA and the BBC had in communist Central and Eastern Europe.
Also there are 160,000 homes in the United States that receive Al-Jazeera thanks to a roof top satellite dish that can be bought at Radio Shack.
Myer is right: the issue is one of control. But whose control? If it is the government, that horse fled that particular barn some time ago as media became increasingly deregulated from government both in America and overseas. The days when American journalists, dressed in uniform, filed stories that bolstered home front morale and did not describe what was really happening in Dresden can’t be regained.
Freer but Less Credible?
So as journalists are freer to report, the obligation to make sure that the news is as reliable as possible becomes key. Yet the credibility of all reporting remains suspect for many listeners and consumers of media. At NPR particularly, we need to understand the consequences of our reporting. To do less would be a disservice to the listeners.
Even so, it will likely not make Myer and other critics more trusting of what NPR does. How ironic that the critics who value freedom in the marketplace still hesitate to allow that same freedom in the journalistic marketplace of ideas.
