Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Words & Reflectionsthe question arose, after the UnitedStates destroyed the Taliban regime inAfghanistan and prepared to fightSaddam Hussein in Iraq: Where wasdissent in this ugly and unusual waragainst terrorism? …“… He [Jurkowitz] then producedanecdotal evidence to support his viewthat reporters were trimming their editorialsails out of concern that criticalstories would kick up a patriotic backlashagainst the press. Overholseragreed with the Jurkowitz line of analysis.She believed that too few toughquestions were being asked, too fewdissident voices being heard. The result,according to Arriaga, was that ourcivil liberties were being jeopardized.“Siegel provided yet another perspective.Normally the journalist wasthe one who produced the ‘first draftof history,’ said the NPR anchor. Now,it was the Pentagon and its unorthodoxspokesman, Defense Secretary DonaldRumsfeld. By briefing almost daily, hecontrolled the message. Even if reportersran contradictory stories,Overholser said, the public tended tobelieve Rumsfeld—he commanded thePR field.“Patriotism was the administration’sally, building a protective wall aroundits policy. Americans were outraged bythe terrorist assaults, and they overwhelminglysupported the President’sresponse. The Taliban regime in Afgoodprogress in Iraq,” he insisted,during this same interview. “Sometimesit’s hard to tell when you listen to thefilter,” the use of the word “filter” beinghis way of refusing even to mentionthe word “media.”The White House is determined tocontrol the message, which means itmust try to exercise more control overthe messengers—a strategic goal thathas been tested by many other administrationswith results that have alwaysleft much to be desired. Nonetheless,National Security Advisor CondoleezzaRice has been put in charge of a newWhite House task force whose primaryresponsibility is to turn negative newsabout Iraq into positive news—a dauntingtask, almost certain to fail.There are, of course, various strategiesto try to address this task. One is totighten control over news sources inIraq, to reduce the number of officialswho talk to the media; another is tolimit access to normally newsworthyplaces, such as hospitals, police stations,and army depots. On one occasion,ABC News’s footage in Iraq wasconfiscated on a flimsy pretext. Stillanother approach is to send prominentU.S. officials to Iraq for the purposeof doing TV interviews fromBaghdad joyfully proclaiming that theThe Press and Coverage of DissentThe Media and the War on TerrorismEdited by Stephen Hess and Marvin KalbThe Brookings Institution. 307 Pages. $22.95 Paperback.Between October 31, 2001 and September19, 2002, 20 sessions were heldin which past and present governmentofficials, foreign and domestic journalists,and scholars discussed topicsrelated to the waging of and reportingon war. This book contains editedtranscripts of those conversations.What follows is an excerpt from thechapter called “Dissent,” in which apanel comprised of pollster Peter D.Hart; Boston Globe media critic MarkJurkowitz; journalism professor, 1986Nieman Fellow, and former newspapereditor Geneva Overholser; humanrights activist Alex Arriaga, and NationalPublic Radio anchor RobertSiegel discussed the press and coverageof dissent. The conversation tookplace on February 27, 2002.“In wartime, dissent carries an additionalnuance—it not only denotes adifference of opinion, it suggests theminority squaring off against the majority,righteously arguing its case. Likethe Supreme Court justice who registersa dissenting opinion, the dissenter,even the lone dissenter, has the right ina free country to register his or heropposition to the majority opinion ofsociety and to government policy. So itwas during the Vietnam War, frequentlyenough that dissent in war came to beseen as a natural appendage of publicopinion in recent American history. Soghanistan collapsed so quickly thatthere was no time for dissent in theUnited States to emerge and grow.Siegel noted that there were few protestson campuses, fewer demonstrationsin central squares. If there wasreal criticism or anger, he said, NPRwould cover it, ‘but that’s barely happening.’This was a ‘fascinating moment’of ‘near unanimity’ in Americanpublic opinion. If the war continuedfor years, he projected, there still mightnot be dissent of the type seen duringthe Vietnam War.” ■72 Nieman Reports / Winter 2003