|
The Press Under Challenge at a Time of War
BY CATHERINE S. MANEGOLD
James M. Cox, Jr. Professor of Journalism
A free, responsible, and independent press is one of the hallmark
strengths of these United States. It is something many other countries
envy.
We take it for granted.
Yet with the wreckage and horror of September 11 behind us and
a major war looming, we are due for a reminder.
In 1945, at another time of war, the Supreme Court ruled that "the
widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic
sources is essential to the welfare of the people." That ruling
has long protected the sort of wild cacophony of voices from which
we get our sense of world events. During war the stakes are higher,
the need greater. We demand reliable facts, incisive analysis, and
solid information to get us thoughtfully through any time of crisis.
During Desert Storm, I was posted in Dhahran as a reporter for
Newsweek Magazine. That port city was a nub in the military's logistics
tail, the major entry point for food, fuel, weapons, ammunition
and all other supplies. To hit that port was to "cut the tail" of
the Pentagon's great beast.
The logistics experts knew it. I knew it. The officials in the
Pentagon's Joint Information Bureau (JBI) knew it. They released
almost no information. It was a reporter's battle just to get an
interview with a soldier charged with cleaning the latrines.
Of course, there are reasons why the Pentagon wanted to control
all information.
*Military officials didn't want to telegraph troop movements to
the enemy.
*They didn't want to give away any well-considered strategy.
*They didn't want to reveal timing.
*And they didn't want bad news.
But back in the United States, where families have sent their
sons and daughters into conflict, there is a need to know. Imagine
a war in which the only information you could get was through a
military briefing. Yet that was largely what America was offered
in that conflict.
To be a reporter in that war was to often be in conflict with
the U.S. government. But the Pentagon's move toward a news blackout
backfired.
When it later came out that Saddam's scud missiles were far less
sophisticated than the Pentagon had claimed -and that the Patriot
missiles we sent out after them often failed to reach their target-
the press lockdown started to look silly at best, and sinister at
worst.
It also seemed vaguely un-American.
This time, the press is offered front-row seats. Reporters in a
new conflict will be "embedded" in military units in the field -allowed
to report (just as Ernie Pyle and countless others did in WWII)
directly from the theater of conflict. Fine and good. But those
will just be snapshots from the field. The larger fact remains that
the only way to get a reliable picture in the fog of battle will
be the same as it has ever been: to piece together as many solid
facts and trustworthy bits of analysis from as many sources as possible.
Pentagon officials always will cooperate where and how they want.
That's not my worry. Reporters always have had to push and dodge.
The more serious challenge is a quieter one being made under the
cloak of free-market enterprise.
|
|
|
| |
| CATHERINE S.
MANEGOLD, IS THE JAMES M. COX, JR. PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AT EMORY.
SHE WORKED FOR TWENTY YEARS AS A REPORTER AND EDITOR WITH THE NEW
YORK TIMES, NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE, AND THE PHILADELPHIA
INQUIRER. HER AWARD-WINNING WORK INCLUDES REPORTING ON THE FALL
OF MARCOS IN THE PHILLIPINES, CIVIL WAR IN SRI LANKA AND LIFE UNDER
COMMUNIST RULE IN VIETNAM. SHE IS A SEVEN-TIME PULITZER PRIZE NOMINEE
AND WAS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES TEAM AWARDED A PULITZER
FOR COVERAGE OF THE 1993 TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. |
 |
The Federal Communications Commission, the agency charged with preserving
the ideals that the Supreme Court articulated in 1945, is busy undermining
the very structure it was established to preserve. In 1996 FCC officials
moved to release radio stations from controls intended to guarantee open
access to our airwaves. Now, the FCC is on the move again, trying to withdraw
the last thin barriers that prevent excessive consolidation of other media.
The possible result is all too clear:
One voice. One station. Every market. All the time.
Recent history speaks volumes. In 1996 the nation's two largest radio
chains owned 115 stations. Today, just seven years after the FCC loosened
its leash, the same two chains own more than 1,400 stations. This represents
an extraordinary contraction of the number of voices, opinions, thoughts
and ideas to which the listening public has access. And it represents
a gross violation of the Supreme Court's eloquent ruling.
Today, radio stations across America offer exactly the same content,
with local weather pasted in for "authenticity." There is no real freedom
of speech in that. There is no "widest possible dissemination of
information..." And there is frighteningly little way to ensure that
the messy, exuberant, ongoing dialog so central to American life will
be preserved.
Newspapers and broadcast media are now under the same gun.
Already, 10 companies own 90 percent of the media outlets. For the conglomerates,
this is good news. More stations, more newspapers, more profit. And the
news for them is only getting better. The FCC is about to take away the
last barriers to further concentration.
One voice. One station. Every market. All the time.
Yet let's consider this challenge at a time of war. Do we want to limit
and constrict our information? Shall we all be in agreement? Do we want
to choke off our access to varied opinion and stifle our always noisy
flow of thought?
We do not. We cannot afford it if we wish to remain the strong and vital
country we have been. This right to argue and debate and to self-educate
deserves whatever safeguards we can give it. This issue deserves our attention,
and it's worth a fight.
The FCC on this is wrong. I can hardly think of a greater national tragedy
than having corporate voracity be the driving rationale for narrowed thought.
|
