Now that the United States is officially at war with Saddam Hussein, can we expect the media to adopt a rah-rah stance in its reporting? Will journalists sport American flag pins, as some did in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and use terms like “we” and “us”? Will we downplay the deaths of U.S. service members, not to mention those of Iraqi women and children?
Most media representatives would brand such questions as absurd. They would cite the profession’s devotion to truth, fairness and balance as mitigating against such behavior.
Yet we know that there are those who, doubtless, would prefer otherwise. Many of these individuals have spouses, relatives or friends fighting to topple Saddam.
Understandably, they want to feel that there’s a solid wall of support for uniformed personnel who are risking their lives for our safety. I suspect that their desire for solid American support is somehow tied to a belief that such advocacy will enhance the chances of a quick victory and the safe return of service members.
Some individuals would prefer that we ignore anti-war protests, show our government and the military only in the most favorable light, and dial back on the reporting of military maneuvers for fear that such coverage endangers lives.
I suspect this because in the week or so leading up to Wednesday night’s U.S. “decapitation” attack against senior Iraqi leaders in Baghdad, readers had become increasingly critical of any coverage — or opinions, cartoons, etc. — deemed not pro-military/U.S./President Bush.
More specifically, some Pilot readers have dumped on us for:
- Writing about how the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman made brief detours from its regular duties in the eastern Mediterranean Sea northward toward the 39th parallel to visit a war zone so the crew would qualify for a tax break — and thus a pay boost.
- Detailing how service members are writing “death letters” to loved ones in case they are killed in action.
- Running stories and photos about anti-war protests.
- Publishing information about troop deployment, military buildup and planned war maneuvers.
Military Team leader Carl Fincke was up to his ears in work when I approached about these concerns. He stressed that The Virginian-Pilot will not report information that would harm military personnel.
His team’s mission, he said, is to write “good stories” that “tell readers what it is like to be in the military, how the military affects our community, insight into how the military operates.”
Supporting the military is not necessarily a part of that mission, he adds. Instead, the team strives for a balanced report. Which means that some stories “might come off as positive, others as negative,” Fincke says.
Our military coverage “should be no different than any other topic,” he says. “In our coverage of local government, of police, of education, of sportsteams, of the arts, it’s expected to be unbiased and fair. We don’t take sides.”
Fincke is proud of the fact that of the almost 40 stories written by The Pilot’s two reporters “embedded” with military troops, only one has been singled out as “anti-military” by several readers.
Some readers have so labeled Matt Dolan’s front page story March 11, “Carrier’s brief detour wins lasting tax break: Visit to war zone boosts pay of all on board.”
But Fincke stresses that nowhere in the story does Dolan, who heard about the detour practice from sailors on the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, criticize the Navy.
Trashing God? More than a dozen readers told us they resented last Sunday’s Commentary coverage package: Jackson Lears’ commentary (“How a war became a crusade”) examination of how Bush has wrapped his presidency and his war objectives in the cloak of religion; and a cartoon panel that seemingly mocks the president’s “God talks.”
“How can you allow one of your editors to trash God like you do?” asked a reader, who branded the cartoon “absolutely raw” and the commentary “absurd.”
The commentary was what it was, a writer’s opinion, “biased,” as such pieces always are. The cartoon was edgier than many that have appeared in Commentary and especially sensitive, considering it dealt with the touchy subject of religion.
Commentary Editor Lynn Feigenbaum explains that the section’s content is chosen “not because we share the writers’ opinions (I’ve run many pieces I’ve entirely disagreed with) but because they’re thought-provoking, interesting, well-researched, maybe even abrasive or controversial and will encourage debate.
“The commentary and cartoon in question . . . addressed the question of Bush’s use of religion in his presidency and his war policy. And, in fact, they stirred up some interesting feedback.”
