In a democracy, the spectacle of journalists spreading unedited propaganda messages for governments or police is not a pretty one.
Such grovelling to authority, even for a perceived public good such as catching a terrorist or saving lives, raises doubts about the independence and credibility of news organizations.
It is the media’s job to report what’s going on in the world the news without becoming an arm of the law or an accomplice of those who flout laws.
You can’t be critic and player at the same time, as the saying goes. The blending of those roles only invites audiences to ask if the media are being manipulated.
Twice this month, large media outfits in Canada and the U.S. have done the bidding of law enforcers, without proper regard for the dreadful precedents they may have set.
The first time was Sept. 13, when armed Indian rebels – called terrorists by the RCMP – were about to end the month-long standoff at a ranch they’d occupied at Gustafsen Lake, B.C.
The Mounties asked CBC Radio to broadcast a 40-second statement by respected chief Antoine Archie promising the squatters they wouldn’t be mistreated if they surrendered.
The message was aired three times between 2 and 3 p.m. But it took three more days and an appearance in the camp by a spiritual mentor, John Stevens of Alberta, to achieve the surrender.
“It was an editorial decision,” a CBC spokesperson said this week. “It was based on a statement that the RCMP made to us that lives were at stake, quote, unquote.”
The episode raises questions. Was Archie making a promise that might not be kept? Were lives really in danger? Did the CBC risk its reputation as a reliable news source by airing the message on request? Does the RCMP now owe the CBC a favor? Will the Mounties lean on the state broadcaster again?
The second and, arguably, more worrisome case was the joint decision by The Washington Post and The New York Times on September 19 to print what one writer described as “the foggy and meandering musings” of a U.S. serial killer known as the Unabomber.
The newspapers did it because U.S. Attorney-General Janet Reno and the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked them to. The bomber, who has killed three and injured 23 others in 17 years, had promised to stop mailing bombs if his statement was printed.
The publishers are said to view this as a public safety measure and a tough choice between two bad options: Do you bow to a terrorist or risk public ire if he kills again?
The Star’s publisher, John Honderich, is justifiably concerned that others may copy the Unabomber, or that the terrorist might blackmail the media again.
“While I understand the human response (by the two U.S. publishers), I am very concerned about the precedent that’s been set,” he says, expressing dismay at the Unabomber’s use of newspapers as “accomplices.”
When you think about it, how could a paper be held accountable for a murderer’s uncontrollable actions?
The Unabomber episode is troublesome for another reason: Readers rely on the media to level with them. Yet how can they be certain that Times and Post executives aren’t privy to inside dope about the Unabomber threats, theories, targets that they aren’t reporting?
To repeat: When you join the players, you’re no longer a critic.
