Clippings 2003

April 7, 2003

In the Line of Fire

Journalists around the world continue to give up their lives in trying to do their jobs. This is true not only in active conflicts, like the Iraq war, but in countries where murder is used by governments or shadowy powers to intimidate and silence witnesses. Angela Morgenstern of KQED has created a remarkable website, to go with a PBS series, describing the patterns of murder in recent years across the globe. Click on the section called "In the Line of Fire." Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld

March 20, 2003

In a time of war, we must all do our part. For the journalists, that means simply: do your job. You are not a soldier, nor are you a political policy-maker. You are the professional skeptic, the one who must ask the questions no one else is asking, and who reports the news even if it is painful.

There is a lot of talk around America these days that the normal journalist’s role of reporting flaws and disagreements in U.S. government policies should end, now that the war against Iraq is underway. Some believe that raising questions about the basis and roll-out of this U.S. attack on Iraq is unpatriotic and endangers the lives of our military. But I believe that history teaches us just the opposite lesson: questioning the basis and the methods of waging war is essential if democracy is to work. Only through scrutiny can government be held accountable. Our nation especially should understand this lesson, after the painful experience of our war in Vietnam.

Many Americans join others around the world in raising questions about this war. Some are concerned that it may actually do more harm than good, by inciting more anti-American terrorism and instability in the world. These critics are sobered by the fact that this war is exactly what Bin Laden was hoping for. He wanted to ignite a global conflict that looked as if America was an imperialist evil empire, waging a crusade against the Muslim world. Using all the might of the world’s only superpower, without the support of the United Nations and our historic allies, we seem to have taken Bin Laden’s bait. Yet those who point out these problems are declared persona non grata by many fellow Americans.

What is the role of the journalist in such a time of national crisis? Because the critics within our political system are being intimidated and vilified by those who think any dissent is inappropriate, it is more important than ever for someone to ask the tough questions. To report what is actually happening. To hold officials accountable. That is always the role of the journalist.

To be sure, there are special rules that apply when one’s own nation is on the battlefield. One rule is that journalists don’t endanger a military operation that is underway. They don’t report in real time (unless given the green light by the military) on troops in motion, or reveal battle plans in advance. They balance the public’s need to know with the military’s need to hold some things secret, at least for a time.

I agree with the Committee of Concerned Journalists’ advice about the journalist’s role in this time of war:

“Act as a professional observer, providing citizens with the information they need to understand and evaluate the situation and their own safety for themselves. That often means providing people with information they may find difficult to hear. This implies that just as a doctor or lawyer helps make our society work by taking on unpopular but vital roles, providing this information is how a journalist expresses his or her patriotism, his or her commitment to the U.S.”

This means that American journalists are properly doing their jobs by helping Americans understand foreign responses to the U.S. position. They must help us understand who we are fighting against, even if this means spending time with the enemy. They must report on errors by U.S. commanders in the battlefield, which could possibly save lives next time. Airing criticism of how the war is administered is not unpatriotic, and is not an expression of disloyalty to the U.S. military. Quite the contrary, it is protecting them from giving their lives in vain, in conflicts that are ill-conceived or poorly executed.

On Oct. 17, 2001, when Ted Koppel presented a program on ABC Television’s “Nightline” about bio-terrorism and anthrax attacks at the Capitol, he anticipated concern from his audience about whether he should be discussing these matters. “Let me ask you to briefly consider a world in which we essentially shut down our information-gathering process,” he said at the outset of the show. “In most countries of the world the…government decides what is in the national interest and the media disseminate the information…You may find yourselves wondering tonight…whether that might not be a safer, more reassuring environment. But be careful of what you wish for. Americans are accustomed to knowing what is going on in their world and bad news is a necessary part of that. It is how we analyze our problems, how we find solutions, but above all, it is also how our public officials often are held accountable.”

March 9, 2003

Many patriotic Americans have not spoken out because we want to support our President and our men and women in uniform. Others are simply confused and scared. Just as antiwar demonstrations started to gain attention around the world, our government declared Code Orange, and advised us seal ourselves in our homes with plastic sheets and duct tape.

Now the March 17 deadline for war is at hand, and we must finally speak up, as former president Jimmy Carter did today. Mr. Bush, we are not a focus group. We are hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of America’s most attentive and loyal citizens, using the best tools that our democracy allows. We urge you, as strongly as we can, to regroup. Do not open this Pandora’s box in Iraq.

Whatever happens on the ground in Iraq, it is not going to resolve what is really endangering America. CIA director George Tenet and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have both warned that this attack on Iraq will actually reduce our security as a nation, by fueling more terrorism against Americans.

In a breathtakingly short time, you have reversed the sympathies of most people post 9/11 and obliterated America’s true source of security—our over 200-year contribution to the world as a beacon for freedom, justice and truth. We have gone from being the world’s most favored nation, to its most hated one. We may end up turning Saddam from a monster into a martyr.

Your military bravado, your defiance of the United Nations and other international alliances that have been struggling successfully to contain an unruly world since World War 2, and your arrogant dismissal of treaties regarding international justice and the environment have contributed to a global backlash against America. Many people around the world see this defiance of the international community as worse than the defiance of Saddam Hussein, because we, too, flaunt international agreements, but we have far more weapons of mass destruction than he does.

The Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq war resolution because it was a way to support America’s bid for an international coalition. That bid has failed. Because you do not understand the complexities of world power, you have left us isolated and vulnerable. It is not too late for you to lead effective multilateral efforts to contain both Iraq and North Korea, discrediting both regimes with incremental military pressure accompanied by a global campaign for democracy and justice, including aid to poorer nations. That will win us respect, instead of enmity. If instead you go forward as planned, with an all-out “shock attack” on Iraq, you will surely inspire more recruits to the terrorists’ cause. Our children will face generations of anti-American suicide bombers at home and abroad, and an economy crippled by this $95 billion mistake.

Please, Mr. Bush, turn back before it is too late. You are holding a lighted match to the tinderbox of the world.

Ellen Hume