|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 43
We received many, many responses to our recent question:
A reporter was asked if he would reveal the presence of an American commando unit located behind enemy lines.
He answered that, yes, he would, adding "I don't represent the government. I represent history, information,
what's happened." Should the press be objective or patriotic? Or...?
Here are all the responses we received.
The press should be objective rather than patriotic as a general matter, but it should not report information
which would endanger any life, absent a compelling need. The value of the information to the readership/viewership
should be weighed against the dangers caused by placing individuals in jeopardy. In the hypothetical presented,
the danger caused by revealing the presence of commando units clearly outweighs whatever marginal interest the
public might have in knowing the exact location of the commandos. This need to withhold information when jeopardizing
lives is particularly acute regarding a war being waged by a democratic country with a legitimate government.
Steven Mulroy
I think it would be wrong for the media to release information in the middle of a battle when that information
might endanger U.S. military personnel. I don't think, however, that is the issue or the problem. Since September 11,
the media has served as cheerleaders for U.S. government policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, without raising the
legitimate issues that Americans should be debating. The media has failed in its duty as the keepers of the people's
right to know and, rather, has served as an arm of the government to keep spirits high and assure support for the
administration's policies. I think this is one of the many side effects of having the media controlled by large
corporate interests. This policy is not only reflected in military and foreign policy issues, but even on domestic
issues where the media increasingly treat criticism of the president's policies as just a return to partisan politics.
Lewis R. Katz
John C. Hutchins Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
The reporters editor might not publish the story - for example, the James Reston did not publish info on Kennedy's
Cuban invasion in 1962 (I think that was the year). However, the Chicago Tribune in June 1942 printed a story that
suggested the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code - President Roosevelt was furious and some suggested that the
Chicago Tribune should be seized (or placed in a receivership - a good idea at the time). Lots of classified material
gets published - it's not called "Aviation Leak" for nothing. - but we have statutes purporting to allow some
suppression of news - see the Progressive Case here in Wisconsin where the District Court (a very able federal
judge, Robert Warren) enjoined publication of allegedly nuclear secrets (how to build an H. bomb) - the Judge had
affidavits to support suppression from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. Doubtless they were in
error in judging consequences - the story was published and we survive. If the reporter threatens enough injury I'd
advise seizing him & preventing publication by whatever means necessary - the test of reasonableness applies - and
one would have to justify the seizure later.
Gordon Baldwin
emeritus professor of law, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Of course the press should be objective, but that hardly justifies revealing the location of troops WHILE THE OPERATION
IS PROCEEDING. History can and should be represented by telling everything (warts and all) at a time when publishing
will not harm the operation or the troops. See e.g. Pentagon Papers.
Arnold H. Loewy
Graham Kenan Prof.
UNC Law School
The question whether the press should be objective or patriotic should be left to the press. If the press chooses to be
objective rather than patriotic, however, it should not expect extravagant First Amendment protection against laws of
treason and comparable laws. If fidelity to objectivity is high enough to risk such sanction, it at least manifests
serious courage of conviction. First Amendment protections must be geared to the public's right to know, balanced as
it must be in wartime against considerations of the safety and defense of the community.
Mark Hager
Professor of Law
American University
Assuming the reporter was an American, the reporter's response is morally heinous. Every American is under a moral
duty not to endanger his countrymen engaged in the defense of the nation. One need only transpose the question into
some past armed conflict to see the moral bankruptcy of the reporter. Suppose in May 1942 the press revealed that
the US Navy had broken the Japanese fleet's communications code and that a task force had departed Pearl Harbor to
intercept the Japanese strike force approaching Midway? Not only could such information be validly suppressed before
publication (see, e.g, Near v. Minnesota, Pentagon Papers) but the moral abyss of such betrayal is unthinkable. If
the quoted reporter truly exists, he or she represents much that is wrong with contemporary western culture -- the
ethos that one has no duty to a society larger than oneself, no sense of such a thing as honor, or fidelity to the
society that has nurtured you.
Calvin Massey
Professor of Law
University of California, Hastings
The idea that journalistic objectivity precludes weighing countervailing factors before reporting information is
obviously false. Reporters suppress information for all sorts of good reasons: because the news value of the information
is outweighed by considerations of privacy, or decency, or compassion; because reporting the information would compromise
a source; etc. The notion that loyalty to one's country could not be an adequately countervailing factor of this sort will
seem plausible only to those who have no such loyalty to begin with.
Paul Campos
Professor of Law
University of Colorado
Columnist Denver Rocky Mountain News
I think the reporter who "represents history ..." is more than a bit full of him- or herself.
Raymond B. Marcin
If, as you say, true identities make for better dialogue, would you please identify the reporter who said he would name an
American commando unit because he thinks he represents "history," "information," etc. It would really help to know what kind
of reporter said it, and in what context, for he is going to discover sooner or later that there is no "history" that is not
bounded by particular civilizational or societal conventions, and that to practice his profession he depends very much on one
such set of conventions. Making him known would be the only appropriate way to open a dialogue from which might emerge the
important observation that people who want to affirm most "universal" rights have to turn to liberal democratic nation states
to vindicate and protect them. There is nowhere else to turn. Just try it.
Just as individuals who think of themselves as the bearers of Kantian, universal rights are nevertheless constrained to
implement those rights within the idiosyncratic terms of their biographical and bodily inheritances and histories, so human
beings in groups make affirmations that are rooted in shared histories of the kind the reporter says he represents. Since
international and transnational organizations will not and cannot adjudicate cases turning on freedom of the press, let
him realize whose kind of history he represents, is implicated in, and has some obligation to defend.
Jim Sleeper
author of Liberal Racism and The Closest of Strangers;
lecturer in political science, Yale University.
Part of the difficulty in not reporting what you know is guessing the impact of your withholding of information. If the
press had printed what it knew about the Bay of Pigs invasion, that debacle very likely would have been averted.
For those confronting for the first time the dilemmas of journalism, it might be comforting to know that this sort of
question is journalism 101. it's not uncommon for this question to come up in the first semester.
Joel Garreau
I think the reporter is wrong. If the press demands protection from government censorship or restriction, as I think
it should, then the press must also act responsibly. In certain rare cases, the public's right to know has to be balanced
against competing values, such as the security of an on-going military operation, and this is one of them. The reporter
could write in general terms that commando operations are going on in a given region without revealing the unit's location
or endangering its mission.
Steven V. Roberts, Shapiro Professor of Media and Public Affairs
Clearly this reporter has lost perspective of what he/she is doing. Or maybe even never had any. It is true he/she does
not represent the government, but he/she is an American reporter. This is not a journalistic decision that brings added
information to the public in making a judgement about it's government, but one that simply puts his/her government and
individuals at harm. The fact that this person believes that he/she simply represents "history, information, what's
happened" is naive. The person is forgetting that accepting the responsibility of being a journalist in America is more
than just putting information before the public. With the freedom of press, which is guaranteed this person by our
constitution, comes responsibility. This not a decision about objective or patriotic, it is a matter of being responsible.
Richard Bilotti
For me, the response to this question is a very simple and straightforward one: The press always has an obligation to be
objective, if it is to be true to the purposes of the 1st Amendment and what I hope would be some code of professional
ethics. It is not obligated to be patriotic necessarily, but it is obligated to be responsible, and revealing that kind
of information is irresponsible.
In making the decision to reveal the presence of the unit, the press is jeopardizing both lives and policy. Assuming
that the policy is a "noble" one and one broadly supported by the citizens, revealing the information would undermine
a policy this country ought to be pursuing and put lives at risk.
Assuming the policy were a bad one--especially in the eyes of the press--the press would be making a judgment call
about which it may be wrong and the costs of its decisions are pervasively harmful to the country and individual citizens still.
It is not really a question of patriotism vs. objectivity. It is a questions of accepting the responsibilities that
attend all rights, and the 1st amendment--though it is among our first principles--is no exception. That balance
always needs to be struck. Although the degree of freedom attached to the 1st amendment is substantial (and it needs to be)
the right is not absolute.
Chip Brown
The press should always strive to be objective; it can also be patriotic by providing reliable, sensitive reporting.
In today's world, anyone with the drive and technology can communicate whatever "news" suits their cause, and such
communications can be damaging to our security. It behooves us to let the press report what's happening, using the
guideline of common sense in timing releases and degree of detail.
Sandra P. Wassilie
The reporter in the hypothetical is being untrue to his profession, to his purported role as historian, and to the
community. Journalism does not become part of the news, which the reporter would do by reporting contemporaneously
on warfare and creating consequences for the unit. (And one would hope that journalism's ethics include not causing
unwarranted danger to its subjects.) Resort to history fails because the study of history involves time and perspective,
which this reporter lacks entirely, and does require the memorializing of events, but the latter is accomplished by
simply noting the event without contemporaneous publication. This is not a choice between objectivity and patriotism
as the problem is framed: the reporter can be objective without disclosing the information. The claim that the reporter
has no duty to the government is insupportable if he claims benefits, for example, of any protection of free speech or
press, either in general or in defense of criminal charges. The reporter proposes to behave without regard to his effect
on the community (as its interests are embodied in the unit), and either has divorced his or her own ethic from the
general moral order in which it must justify itself (compare first-amendment absolutism), or has applied a faulty
calculus to prefer his or her own reporting objectives not only over the community's success in the conflict but also
over the lives in the unit. The only exception to this last would involve a unit whose presence and location were already
known to the adversary, which we are not asked to assume.
Edward C. Brewer, III
In response to the reporter's view of information sharing, there are responsibilities to history, etc. as he states.
But, I believe there are over-riding responsibilities to individual life and liberty which his statement neglects.
Medicine has a principle "to do no harm." Don't reporters have a similar principle? If they don't, it would explain
statements such as his, and the periodic inclusion of identifying information on vulnerables in some news stories,
such as rape victims and minors charged with crimes.
Karen Schwab
Any journalist can properly represent "history" by objectively reporting fully and fairly after the risk to human
life (on either side of the line) is no longer present. The reality is that the journalist who reports troop movement
and location in real-time is not looking to serve history or information, but is merely looking to serve themselves
by getting a scoop. This is not good reporting, though it may be profitable reporting for the journalist or the parent
company.
(Also, the reporter who has no qualms about reporting troop location will be less likely to gain access to either party
to a conflict for fear that such a reporter would betray the party in order to serve the reporter's own selfish aims.
In this way, such a journalist would in fact be hurting his future chances for access and information, which in the long
run would not serve the stated interest in representing "history, information, [and] what's happened.")
Douglas R. Hughes
The reporter should NOT reveal the commando unit. The reporter, presumably of the same nationality as the commando unit,
has a greater duty to the lives of his countrymen than the requirements of a job. And yes, let's realize that the reporter
has just a job; not a great moral cause, but a job. He could (and maybe should) be flipping burgers tomorrow. My image of
the reporter is that he/she puts themselves above the community. This is an arrogant and elitist attitude.
Karl Bozicevich
First of all, I didn't ask you to use my private address. Secondly, I have many American friends with high intellectual
and moral standards but I never saw the official American government and leading American newspapers use or even refer to
their analysis. It is a shame how complacent they are.
Egidius Berns
The Netherlands
I notice you identified the reporter as "he," and most likely the question or that answer would not occur to a woman reporter.
She would not see it as an either/or situation. I would like to think she would take a more holistic, long term view.
A reporter (the press) should be both objective and patriotic. These are not mutually exclusive conditions or intentions.
Patriotism does not have to be jingo-ism.
The question is how did he/she find out about the commando unit? Was it from overhearing loose-lipped American soldiers
hanging out in public bars. Even then his /her reporting the commando unit and the source would be questionable.
Did he/she get the information from a background military briefing. Can't report it. That is the agreement for attending
the briefing.
An omission of reporting when lives of our troops are endangered does not make a reporter unobjective or biased.
It is true there is much speculation that if the NYT had reported on the Bay of Pigs before it happened Kennedy might have
called it off. We will never know. But that is not the same thing.
Should a cameraperson, who sees someone about to leap off a bridge, machine gun students, etc. stop the person if he/she
can or go for the picture?
It all depends on what kind of values you have and has nothing do to with professional journalistic standards.
Clare Crawford-Mason
Regarding the reporter who would provide information on a commando unit behind enemy lines, he is misguided, muddle-headed
and flat-out wrong. It's not a question of being "objective" or patriotic. It's a question of betraying or protecting the
country. The only reason this reporter can even talk about providing information like this is because he is protected by
the U.S. Constitution. To actually do so would be a betrayal of the country and the Constitution.
The reporter claims that he doesn't represent the government. Who, or what, does he represent? His action would certainly
represent the enemy government quit well. Does he honestly believe that providing helpful information to the enemy, possibly
to the downfall of the country, is representing the people?
One need only ask "What purpose would the information serve?" to know the correct course of action. This reporter is simply
too young or too ill-informed to "get it." Let's hope his reporting responsibility is limited to the social news for now.
Perhaps if the military draft were revived, and aspiring reporters were first recruited to, say, commando duty, the
education would be invaluable.
Mike Audet
If a reporter reveals where sources how can he expect to be trusted the next time he wants an interview? Is he a spy
or a reporter ?
Bill Ellis
A reporter with this attitude *must* be considered an enemy by the troops for the simple reason that he will put their
lives at risk. In World War II, interestingly, the reporters traveled with the troops. If they published information
leading to an attack on the unit, the reporter's life was at risk. If the reporter wants to be safe and risk the lives
of soldiers, he should not expect DOD to provide him with much information.
Al Globus
I think this reporter is as much an enemy of America as the terrorists. Is he an American? Even if he is a reporter,
if he is a loyal American, he should have the well-being of our brave military personnel as his first priority. As a
life-long American citizen, and as a mother/grandmother/ cousin/friend of young men and women who might be serving
this nation in hostile lands, I don't have to know every move the military makes to achieve victory over the evilness
that threatens our way of life. They need the protection of silence from the news media which seems determined to tell
the entire world, which includes the enemy, every move the military makes. I just hope and pray that our government
and military leaders involved in planning and executing our military actions know when to keep their mouths shut in
order to protect our men and women fighting to protect our homeland and our principles of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. God bless them and guide them to victory and to safety.
Joyce R. Harrison
Macon, Ga.
Please allow me to reply. I hold a Ph.D. in mass communications, have taught journalism and communications at the
college and graduate level, and experience in publications, public relations, and on Capitol Hill as a press secretary.
You may include my response in your feedback and put my name to it. Please identify me as a public relations professional.
Any American reporter covering his fellow Americans in a war zone should not reveal information, such as the location
of an American commando unit behind enemy lines, that would jeopardize the lives and mission of the American soldiers.
James Fallows addressed the wrong-headed leanings of too many American journalists in his book, "Breaking the News."
To reveal that such raiding parties were present without revealing the exact location or timing of the strike falls
in a gray zone, but to specify compromising information should be regarded as treason.
The First Amendment is not absolute. It has limits. As crucial as it is to our form of government, to disclose troop
movements and missions in the news media may well cost our nation in greater loss of life, a longer war than otherwise
necessary, and in material resources. Such disclosure serves no useful purpose. Disclosing such information after the
war has ended or at a much later stage may be justifiable, as the American people need information in order to judge
the ability and judgment of their government officials. But to jeopardize troops on the ground can't possibly be
justified, except by some false objectivity.
The scenario described is not a choice between objectivity and patriotism. It's a choice between common sense and
extremist, out-of-touch false values. American journalists must balance competing duties they owe as Americans and
as professionals. But when professional values take precedence over the duties of citizenship, reporters must be
completely sure that the professional ethics serve a long-term civic duty, as well. In no possible way can the choice
of disclosing one's own country's troop locations behind enemy lines be justified by any legitimate professional values.
And it serves no civic purpose. It only helps the enemy of the reporter's own country. If this reporter can't see that,
he deserves to appear before a military tribunal, judged guilty as a traitor, and executed in short order.
James R. Edwards, Jr.
If by "reveal the presence" you mean give the exact location on live global television, the reporter could be
prosecuted under the espionage statutes, and could conceivably face the death penalty.
The obligation of the press is to tell its readers what they need to know in order to act as democratic citizens.
This does not extend to reporting tactical military secrets while they are still useful to the enemy.
I am not a big fan of hypothetical cases, though. Perhaps a real case would be more enlightening.
Michael S. Kochin
I was in the Army during the Vietnam war, though the closest I got to action was the bars in El Paso, Texas.
I have a 19-year-old son who might one day be in that commando unit about which the reporter is so unconcerned.
I don't think reporters should be limited to writing only what military officials tell them. I do think that a
reporter who reveals troop movements and locations in a way that endangers American lives is aiding the enemy
and should expect to be dealt with accordingly.
Should the press be objective or patriotic? It can be either or both, but it shouldn't be dishonest or stupid.
Ed Williams
My opinion on this question is that the reporter could, and perhaps should be charged with treason in the event
that his revelation causes the wounding or death of members of the forces of his nation. His responsibility to
history belongs in history, namely after the actions have been completed. It is attitudes such as those expressed
by this reporter which have caused military forces to refuse to allow reporters to accompany them in combat areas.
No soldier, doing his duty to his country and following competent orders should be required to accept the presence
of an individual whose attitude might well cause his or her death.
I say this as someone who served in two military forces for a total of 32 years, and who has specialized in the area
of military professional ethics. As an ethicist, I would suggest that commanders are justified in preventing personnel
who endanger their troops from operating with those troops.
Arthur E. Gans
I'd tell that reporter who would reveal clandestine military positions to read the Constitution.
Defense of the nation is an enumerated power in the Constitution. The military depends upon surprise as Sun Tzu and
other practitioners of war know. A reporter who detract from a valid military mission detracts from the purpose of
the Constitution and our government -- "to secure these Rights", para 2, Declaration of Independence.
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the free expression of a reporter. One of the purposes of this is to
obviate illegal acts of a government. Reporting illegal military atrocities such as My Lai is to be applauded no matter
what security classification was given it. Reporting a classified position of our troops is committing an atrocity of
another sort and a crime against the Constitution.
For thirty years, I raised my right hand and gave oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies foreign and domestic. A reporter also must defend the Constitution by being informed of its purpose and protecting
that purpose by professional reportage.
Bill Dillon
Lt Colonel (USAF, Retired)
No, the reporter should not report the presence of the commando unit. His claim that he represents "history", etc.
is unverifiable, self-serving and self-righteous. Which takes precedence, his self-proclaimed obligation to so-called
history (and who says that anyone will remember what he wrote, anyway?) or his obligation to guard the lives of his
fellow citizens? Let's also bear in mind that the men whose lives he would so cavalierly put at risk are the men who
have physically demonstrated their willingness to write history by sacrificing their own lives. Should those precious
lives be forfeit because of what he wants to write on paper?
Elizabeth Danziger
Worktalk Communications Consulting
In an enlightened society neither commandos nor the press, as we currently know it, would exist. However, given the
current state of world insanity, here is the correct answer: The press should focus their unblinking eye on every
last detail of every operation that the military carries out. In particular, whenever the military engages the so-called
enemy, reporters should be right there at the exact moment when the bombs and bullets hit their mark. Currently the press
is failing in this regard - failing badly. These foreign corespondents are derelict. Why don't their cameras capture the
horror when a deadly round from an M-16 rips through the flesh of an Afghan peasant? Why don't we hear the screams of
agony when a land mine blows off a leg, or the shrapnel from a bomb tears into a torso? We should zoom right in on the
victims - on the faces of young boys dying before our eyes. Actually, let's show the faces of the *attackers* - the commandos.
Split screen - on one side the guy doing the killing, and the other, the guy getting killed. And then cut away to scenes
of the *mother* of the commando. Set up a direct feed to her living room, so she can share the proud moment. Come on press!
Get on the ball! Why aren't we getting "up close and personal" stories about these "heroes"? I want to know the NAMES of the
commandos. Not only the American's names, but the names of the Afghans they blow away; and not just the soldiers, but their
families: parents, children. Show them too. Show their wailing when the smoke clears. Show their grief. Show the burials.
Show what's *really* going on, will you?
We've got the technology. Let's use it. Let's pipe this carnage into every home on the CNN network. Pipe it into the homes
of the phony religious Christians (and Jews, Muslims, etc), who spout their phony righteous rhetoric about the "cost of
freedom". Let's be brutally clear about what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld means when he says that operations are not "neat,
clean and tidy". (This was his comment last week when U.S. commandos mistakenly slaughtered 18 friendly peasants, and
then paid their relatives $1000 each as "compensation".) And don't just cover the American bloodfest. I want cameras
in Chechnya, and in Tibet, and in Columbia - everywhere that the bloody military does it bloody work. Russian, Chinese,
British, American - there's no difference - they're all murdering beasts. Have the guts to portray them as they are.
Alexander Gabis
In a clearcut warfare context, journalists should be loyal to their home country. This would apply to WWII experiences etc.,
but not to war-like punitive actions administered by one's home nation, without a declaration of war, like the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia or the US triggering of civil war in Afghanistan. In such contested war scenarios reporters must be free to pursue
their professional agendas.
Nils Aarsæther
I think my answer depends on the cause the American unit is protecting or defending; I myself having made an 'interest'
analysis first, from the perspective of not being an American, but a European concerned about the impacts of US policy on
'developing' countries and the EU. If they were protecting their 'national interest' as defined by President Bush in 2002,
I would reveal.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
It depends on the nature of the enemy...is it an alien colossus truly threatening our general world-view's way of life,
in which case my employer communications institution and my role in it, as well as the very existence in anywhere near its
current form of the broader community of which I am a member is at risk, in which case I will not reveal the presence of an
American commando unit behind the lines......or is it a middle-level or small-level polis, or a disruptive, sh*t-disturbing
terrorist organization, in which case I will reveal the presence of an American commando unit....come on, folks, what is
really at stake here, in the broader sense?
Charles Marvin
law professor and son of a journalist
My view is that the reporter should take no personal involvement in a conflict. Representing history, information,
reporting what happened, there should be no involvement in the event, as far as that is possible. I don't think that
reporters should be "spies" for one side or the other, or be part of a plot to use their information for the good of
either side. If reporting is to be about looking for the truth, there should be no attempt to manipulate the gathering
of it, nor the results of it. While it's hard to act consciously in a conflictual, reactive environment, I think there
should be high aims, not that any one of us is going to be perfect about reaching them. Especially because it is likely
that patriotism is part of a reporter's character. Still, standards tend to be where we slip from, thus creating a human
"norm," so we'd be better served by setting them high to begin with! I think it's possible to become a better human being
each day because of such striving. And then the world is full of Climbing down from the soapbox now,
Nessa McCasey
A reporter has a duty to his profession to get all relevant news to his constituents. He makes judgments about what is
important and relevant so he must make choices as to what will be important. He also has a duty as a citizen to protect
the country and its representatives. In this case which is overriding? Is it more important to tell about the military
tactics or to protect them? I think it is to protect the lives of our military and the actions they are taking at the
request of our representative govt.
Leo Rain MD
Los Angeles.
I think the clear choice is to preserve life - to be patriotic and NOT report on soldiers' whereabouts.
Peggy Cairns
The situation our country is in has shifted, in my opinion. I believe we are at war. With that premise, I think it
would be unthinkable to reveal the unit.
Stevan Kukic
We could certainly hope he would represent common sense.
Wesley G. Skogan
To believe one can be totally objective, detached, and impartial is ludicrous. Reporters, like the rest of us,
live in value-laden contexts. History, information, and what's happened don't exist in a vacuum. Said reporter
may not represent our government, but he/she certainly owes it something for the free speech it provides. To
jeopardize that, and the lives of our commandos, in the name of objectivity seems almost spiteful.
Pamela Dodd
Orlando, FL
The issue re: the press has nothing to do with an abstraction like "being patriotic." It has to do with not
endangering the security of Americans, both on the field in military operations and civilians back here. Please
let's frame issues in the most appropriate way. "Objectivity" vs "patriotism" just doesn't cut it, especially
when you consider what is at stake here -- finding people who may well have the means to kill Americans by the
hundreds of thousands and who most certainly are determined to do so.
Logan, Richard
Journalists are life and peace teachers, their future is worldwide.
Joelle Dumas
Is he crazy?? Patriotism has nothing to do with it, unless he is supporting the enemy. Doing what he proposes
could get someone killed on our side. Is that what he wants?? American body bags?? Does the press really hate
the military as much as they hate conservatives, Christians and Republicans??
Don Buechler
Florissant, MO.
I wish somebody, perhaps You, can tell me and millions like me, why the American and western peoples are blind
over American and British terrorism against Iraq, that began over ten years ago and continues through sanctions,
air raids and killings of innocent people, without media coverages.
Is Iraq a slave country to USA and Britain?
Are the Palestinian people slaves to Israeli daily massacres by American F-16 and Apache missiles ? somebody,
from USA people must shout stop !! there is no UN, because it is dominated by US veto, which lately barred UN
troops to stand between Israeli aggressors and Palestinian victims, civilians...
A green light was kindly bestowed on Israeli Sharon, during latest visit to join in future pounding of Iraq..
who next? why savages are loose to kill, embezzle and cry that they are victims of terrorism???
Victor Elsayeh
I can imagine the kind of response you will receive to your question about the journalist. As a journalist
myself (nearly 33 years in the trade), I am troubled by the way you presented the question. I'd like to know
just who the unnamed journalist is. I'd like to know when and where he made the comment. I agree with you that
true identities make for better dialogue. So do authentic, documented facts. The quotation which you have
presented has the distinctive ring of urban legend. If that is all it is, your distributing it contributes
unfairly to a broad perception that reporters are cynical, disloyal and unprincipled. There certainly are
some in the trade whose personal ethics are lower than others'. But unqualified accounts such as the one
you have given are the building blocks of harmful stereotypes. I am a strong believer of many of the principles of
communitarianism and I hope you would agree that responsible news media are essential to the kind of world
communitarians want to build. Please, let's hold individuals accountable for their own words and actions.
A little more precision, a little less generalization. Regards,
Doug Floyd
I am a pacifist and left of center. I believe that any reporter who gave specific information that would
endanger lives; commandos, regular troops or non-combatants, should be tried for reckless endangerment
and sentenced according to the law.
Roger Nehring
Cherokee, NC
This is not a "hard problem" in terms of ethics. Reporters have many obligations that arise from being
humans, from being citizens of a country, and (somewhat down the list) from their occupation of reporter.
The only "news value" pushing the immediate disclosure of military secrets is the value of "timeliness."
When news gets sufficiently old it is no longer very interesting as news. However, timeliness is also related
to reporters' self-interest in scooping the competition, and that self-interest is clearly subordinate to
issues of jeopardizing (by immediate publication) the lives of one's fellow citizens who are currently in
harm's way. The argument that the reporter, like a historian, has an obligation to truth is correct but
irrelevant since the reporter and the historian can wait to publish until after the possibility of harm has
passed. Clearly, reporters who publish quickly in the circumstances of this case are acting unethically.
I am a retired professor of communication and taught media ethics at Brigham Young University for more than
a decade. I don't think there would be disagreement among my colleagues on this case, even on the part of
those who championed the "freedom of the press" more than I was inclined to. Lou Hodges made an interesting
distinction between a "responsible" and an "accountable" press. A free press should not be "accountable" to
the government or anyone else (not even its public, although in the long run the public can shut down a
particularly offensive example of the press by not patronizing it), but it should be "responsible" to
its own conscience and to the combined judgment of those in the profession who bring experience and
reflection to bear on ethical issues. The U.S. media now should not report military secrets that endanger
the lives of U.S. troops any more than they should have reported the date of the Normandy landings. This
is not a "hard case."
Dr. Gordon C. Whiting
Prof. Emeritus
The press has no moral obligation to be patriotic but every need to be objective. This sounds fine, but is
objectivity feasible? It can't just mean a tedious recital of facts. Few would read them and newspapers are
already too long. So the reporter and the editor have to be selective. A newspaper (or a newscast) has to
interpret what is going on for the readers; this interpretative role implies a prior political, moral and
social editorial viewpoint, known by the readers and expressed by the reporters. So the ideal of objectivity
is already compromised by the editorial ideals. A balance needs to be struck. Separation of news and editorial
content as a way to approach this balance often cannot be completely achieved.
Patriotism is a poisoned cup; it contains within itself the possibility of chauvinism, demonization of the
other, self-delusion, internal intolerance of dissent and denial of truth. It is a cause of many of the
problems of our world. Patriotism can corrupt the communitarian impulse. One can be a strong communitarian
and a weak patriot and vice versa. Love of country can be distorted, particularly by politicians and the
media, to serve sinister ends. To what extent a newspaper should be patriotic is an editorial decision. But
to use patriotism as a reason to distort the truth seems to me unacceptable for a newspaper or news broadcaster.
So, was the reporter right? The reporter in your story seems somewhat self-important to think that each dispatch
represents instant history - good history requires a step back from the event. I agree that reporters have a
responsibility to their paper and their readers not their government and therefore should avoid transmitting
governmental or other forms of propaganda (even if one combatant is paying their way). But, bearing in mind
the nature of war, the reporter is in a privileged position as a non-participant observer with special access,
and should not put people's lives at extra risk (lives of combatants from either side or of civilians). So,
in this example, the reporter should not put the lives of the US commando unit at extra risk (in so doing he
may also influence the course of history, not just report it). If reporting from the other side the journalist
should not put the lives of any remaining 'enemy' at extra risk.
Exceptions to this general rule exist. If the commando unit was on an illegal mission (say to assassinate a
non-combatant) the reporter would have to judge the importance of revealing the activity, weigh this against
the reporter's ability to continue reporting and decide accordingly. One wishes that such dilemmas occur
infrequently. Unfortunately I suspect that they don't. Telling the truth is not easy!
Michael Gurney
Divonne, France
|
