Journalists need to understand what the public already does: This is war
MIKE WENDLAND: Journalists need to understand what the public already does: This is war
October 17, 2001
BY MIKE WENDLAND
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The disconnect between the U.S. media and the public they
purport to serve has turned into a virtual chasm in the wake of the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Over the weekend, leaders of 21 journalism groups blasted the
government for "limiting the ability of news media to give people
the information they need to stay safe."
They sounded like the pampered elite that much of the public
believes them to be.
Brant Houston from Investigative Reporters and Editors whined
that information about airport security, bridges and dams, among
other things, has been removed from a number of federal Web
sites "without explanation."
Duh. Is Houston that dense? Information on those sites
pinpointed maintenance problems and provided exact locations
valuable to anyone who would seek to sabotage them. The
government needn't explain why that information was removed.
I'd want an explanation if it left the information up.
Then there's Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television
News Directors Association. She is out of joint because the
Federal Aviation Administration grounded news helicopters in
major cities following the attacks. Although restrictions were
recently lifted for 15 of the 30 major metropolitan areas, she
claims any bans seem excessive.
What? Our right to watch yet another police chase or more
airborne voyeurism is in jeopardy here? Again, our enemy has
attacked U.S. skyscrapers by air. We know they've already
hijacked four passenger jets and scouted out crop dusting
planes. Doesn't Cochran think it logical for the government to be
concerned about helicopters, too?
Other journalists are worried about the government's efforts to
loosen laws so that agents can better monitor Internet e-mail and
instant message conversations, as it currently can for telephone
communications. Amid mounting evidence that terrorists have
used the Internet to research targets and coordinate attacks, this
certainly seems reasonable.
Except to my colleagues in the news media.
Everywhere I've been for the last week or so, at church, in
restaurants, shopping centers, in my own neighborhood and
among family members, people have gone out of their way to tell
me how disappointed they are in the media.
At a time of war, when civilians are openly targeted by our
enemies, journalistic objectivity is seen by many to border on
treason. There is nothing to be objective about in covering
Osama bin Laden. He is evil incarnate.
I've received e-mails from people who caution me and my
colleagues to be more careful in our reporting, more respectful in
our tone and more patient in waiting for all the information to
come out instead of running with every false anthrax scare or
bomb threat.
They've watched reporters on TV ask shallow questions and
make petulant demands to provide specific military information
that would only tip off the enemy.
They're angry that Reuters news agency reporters were
instructed not use the word "terrorists" to describe the hijackers
because Reuters considers the word to be "emotive."
They are hurt -- yes, that's the word, hurt -- that NBC, CBS, CNN,
ABC and numerous local stations asked reporters not to wear
lapel pins with the American flag. (Fox, meanwhile, encourages
its reporters and anchors to do so.)
And people are sick of the same file video shown again and
again of Osama bin Laden kneeling down and firing a weapon.
News has never been needed more than in the days since Sept.
11. But that news needs to serve a greater cause these days.
Inform us responsibly but give no aid to the enemy.
The public understands our nation is at war and they can't
understand why the media don't.
MIKE WENDLAND is the Free Press' technology writer.
Contact him at mwendland@freepress.com or 313-222-8861.
freep.com |
