Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Words & Reflectionsprogress they see everywhere is mightyimpressive. Of course, the messageloses much of its power when thesesame officials are hustled to Kuwait inthe evening for “security” reasons.Once, when Deputy Defense SecretaryPaul Wolfowitz decided to overnight inBaghdad, rockets slammed into hishotel, and a U.S. soldier was killed in aweekend of violence. Yet another wayto sell the “positive” message, foolishin the extreme, is to encourage troopsin Iraq to sign and send the exact samedraft of a letter of support for the warto different hometown newspapers,apparently in an effort to suggest that ifthe troops support the war, then everyAmerican ought to, as well.The White House islearning that control of themessage was easier beforethe war. Then, reportersseemed reluctant to criticizethe President or hispolicy. Patriotism stifledthe urge to ask penetratingquestions of senior officials or, onthe omnipresent talk shows, to voiceskepticism about the buildup to thewar. Now, in the aftermath of a brilliantmilitary campaign, the Bush administrationfaces huge problems in Iraqthat were simply unanticipated by thePentagon’s civilian leadership. Each ofthese problems, punctuated by violence,represents hard and unavoidablenews, and the tone of coveragehas decidedly changed—too much tosuit the White House—and the WhiteHouse is fighting back.There is, undeniably, a rising chorusof dissent against the President’s policies—abroadand at home. Critics mightargue that there is not enough dissent,that the administration has been suffocatingdissent, but it exists. Read anynewspaper. Watch any television report.Listen to any radio talk show. Thedebate is everywhere, and it is intensifyingas the opening of the presidentialcampaign draws near.Questions About DissentIn “The Media and the War on Terrorism,”a book I edited with Stephen… the media have begun to give morecoverage of the political oppositionand to antiwar critics.Hess, a senior fellow at the BrookingsInstitution, we included a chaptercalled “Dissent.” Its content emergedout of a seminar held on this subject onFebruary 27, 2002, six months after theSeptember 11th terrorist attacks. WithIraq then on the horizon, the war inAfghanistan was a prime topic of discussion;agreement existed among ourfive experts that the war was “so popular,so swift, and so successful” thatthere was no “room or time” for a“broad, vigorous dissent.”Pollster Peter Hart, a participant inthis seminar, asked in one of his publicopinion surveys whether dissent weakensthe nation’s defense or strengthensit. Forty-nine percent of those hepolled said it strengthened the nation.In a 1985 poll, 57 percent supportedthe right of dissent, even during war.Hart felt the figures indicated little realdifference. I disagree. There has been anoticeable drop in support of dissentduring the war on terrorism.Other seminar participants spoke toissues related to the media and dissent.Boston Globe media reporter MarkJurkowitz raised the question, “Whoshould decide what should be publishedduring wartime about militaryoperations?” A Pew Center poll revealedthat two out of three Americans favoredPentagon oversight, in effect revealingthe obvious: Many Americansdidn’t trust the media. ColumnistGeneva Overholser decried the factthat in her view too few voices of dissentwere being heard, too few questionsbeing asked. She inferred thatwhen the voices are heard and thequestions are asked, it might prove tobe too late. National Public Radio anchorRobert Siegel noted that in thepast journalists usually produced the“first draft of history.” Now, he said,that responsibility has been assumedby the Pentagon’s Defense SecretaryDonald Rumsfeld, whose daily briefingshave set the tone for nationalcoverage of the war on terrorism.In the bloody aftermath of the Iraqinvasion, there is a strong sense this isall changing. With serious problems inIraq and with the economy hoveringbetween recovery and continuing uncertainty,the Bush administration nolonger fully controls the message northe news, as it looks ahead and sees areelection campaign that months agoseemed like a cakewalk now appearingmore like mortal combat. It sees spreadingdissent and open disagreement,even within its own party, and themedia have begun to givemore coverage of thepolitical opposition andto antiwar critics. Theadministration might yetprevail, but if it prevails,it will only be after a vigorousdebate with thosewho are now taking fulleradvantage of their constitutional rightto express their patriotic dissent. ■Marvin Kalb is a senior fellow at theJoan Shorenstein Center on thePress, Politics and Public Policy andfaculty chair for Harvard’s KennedySchool of Government’s Washington,D.C. programs. An award-winningreporter, he worked for 30 years forCBS and NBC News, as chief diplomaticcorrespondent, Moscow bureauchief, and host of “Meet thePress.” His most recent book, “TheMedia and the War on Terrorism,”coedited with Stephen Hess, waspublished by the Brookings InstitutionPress in the fall of 2003.marvin_kalb@harvard.eduNieman Reports / Winter 2003 73