Is there such a thing as patriotic duty in the media? I was asked during an MSNBC.com chat Thursday. I think the patriotic duty of the U.S. news media is first to function as an independent and free press to do what its envisioned in the Constitution to do, I responded. It is, in times like these, incumbent on the media to exercise more care and caution, but I think their basic role and duty remain the same.
Clearly, a significant number of readers disagree. Thats understandable. Rarely does the news media look worse, look more self-absorbed, than when exercising that function in unprecedented public view at a time of war or national emergency. Whats patriotic about publishing or broadcasting the messages of hate from those the government is convinced are behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? What can possibly be wrong with journalists showing support for their country by wearing a red, white and blue ribbon or a small American flag while reporting the story? Why do they keep on asking all those questions during military briefings, seeking information that could be useful to the countrys enemies?
The Bush administration stepped into the first of those questions when it asked U.S. news media this week to refrain from either broadcasting or publishing in full any future videotaped statements by Osama bin Laden or spokesmen for his al-Qaida organization. In a subsequent prepared statement, NBC News said that it and other network news divisions agree that we will not air any prerecorded messages from al-Qaida without screening them in their entirety first. We will then apply journalistic judgment before deciding which portions, if any, we will broadcast. The New York Times quoted one unnamed network executive as describing it as a patriotic decision.
I think its also basic, good journalism. An essential part of the process is evaluating information and providing any context necessary to make it understandable and useful to readers. Certainly there are times when broadcasting or reprinting the full text of a speech or press conference is appropriate, depending on the gravity of the subject and the credentials of the speaker. Given the central role of bin Laden and al-Qaida, and the fact that Americans had previously been exposed to little directly from them, Id argue that airing the original tapes was journalistically appropriate. They helped us all understand in chilling detail what the country is up against.
But what may have been appropriate with those original tapes is not necessarily appropriate in handling any future bin Laden videos. This is where basic journalism comes in if the videos contain new information, it should and I trust it will be reported. But thats unlikely to require making the full text available. To do so, or to continue broadcasting or reprinting such messages when they contain nothing that is new, would mean crossing the line from legitimate journalism to simply spreading terrorist propaganda.
Reader Karen Lloyd is concerned about what she sees as another patriotism-related issue. I am an American and mad as hell about NBC, CBS, ABC and any other news organization that continues to have news people that dont feel right about wearing an American flag lapel pin, she writes. She sees refusal to wear such a pin as anti-American behavior and questions: How can we believe any news coming from sources that do not want to offend Americas enemy?
Theres been a lot of debate over this issue in the professional journalism media, and in the case of a news director at a college TV station who banned the wearing of such pins by his on-air personalities, it entered the popular press as well. While Lloyd is right that many journalists dont feel right about wearing a pin, however, Ive seen nothing that indicates that the reason is any concern about offending Americas enemy. The concern is over the principle of journalistic independence.
The best commentary Ive seen on the subject was by Walter S. Mossberg, personal technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal, who wrote a piece titled Why I Wear an American Flag Pin” for the Web site of the Poynter journalism think tank.
As a college student in the 1960s, I marched on the Pentagon and otherwise protested the Vietnam War, Mossberg wrote. I have no regrets about that. Im proud of it, in fact. But I vowed many years ago never to accept the false notion, popular in those days, that the American flag was somehow the property only of the right wing, or the military, or any political faction. It belongs to all of us, even journalists.
Mossberg says he wears a flag pin as a symbol of solidarity with the Sept. 11 victims, their families and all the brave people who are working to deal with the consequences of that attack. But he also says he does not criticize journalists who choose not to wear such a pin. It should be a personal choice. Hes worth reading.
Ray Kunkle from Ocala, Fla., writes that its sad and possibly dangerous to U.S. service men and women for reporters to continue to ask stupid questions and probe to try and get classified information at the White House briefing sessions. I wrote about the issue of security vs. the publics right to know a couple of weeks ago. The thing that strikes me here is the objection not to the information that is actually published but to the questions being asked.
Asking a lot of questions even asking the same question a lot of different ways is a standard part of reporting any story. It can seem arrogant in the best of circumstances, when the only participants are the reporter and the interviewee. And when the process takes place at a news conference being beamed live into U.S. homes, it can be downright professionally embarrassing.
That said, it is the job of reporters to ask questions and for briefers to know the limits of their answers. It is the policy of the Department of Defense to make available timely and accurate information so that the public, Congress and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy, according to the U.S. Department of Defense Principles of Information. Information will be withheld only when disclosure would adversely affect national security or threaten the safety or privacy of the men and women of the Armed Forces. The principles also say that information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the government from criticism or embarrassment.
In other words, the process may not be pretty at times, but the participants all know the ground rules. Its their patriotic duty.
