The events of Sept. 11 and the new War on Terrorism have forced American journalists to rethink how they perceive themselves and ask others to perceive them. Are we American journalists, or are we international journalists who somehow stand detached and nonaligned as we report on world conflicts?
By all accounts, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was a sensitive reporter who sought to help his American readers better understand the "others" of the world. But he was kidnapped and murdered by extremists in Pakistan who didn't ask or care about such journalistic subtleties. They saw him as a symbol of America or, worse yet in their minds, as an American Jew.
In 1970, while a war correspondent in Vietnam, my ABC News camera crew and I were held briefly at gunpoint by Viet Cong troops in Cambodia. We tried to convince our captors we were "international journalists" reporting objectively on all sides, but they clearly saw me as an American and even assumed I was a CIA agent.
They seemed to be impressed that we had broken a story a week earlier about atrocities committed by Cambodian troops that were U.S. allies. But whatever their reasons for letting us go, it was in spite of my being an American.
So where should a journalist's first allegiance lie?
Several weeks after the terror attacks ABC News President David Westin was asked whether he thought the Pentagon was "a legitimate military target" for hijackers who saw themselves in a holy war with the United States. Westin replied that he had no opinion and he felt strongly journalists "should not take a position" on stories they were covering. Later, he apologized, saying his answer "did not address the specifics of September 11."
Yet, the contrasts between covering the war on terrorism and covering other wars can make the nonaligned stance seem appropriate. In Vietnam and the Persian Gulf journalists needed to be accredited with the American military to get access to the story. In return for that accreditation, you pledged not to divulge information that might jeopardize U.S. operations or troops. You also felt the bonding that came from being in the field with troops who provided for your protection as well as their own.
In the early days of the fighting in Afghanistan, by contrast, journalists were traveling into the country on their own, at great risk, looking for evidence of war. From a journalist's perspective, the Pentagon was unhelpful at best, obstructive and misleading at worst.
The clash of values was apparent when NPR foreign editor Loren Jenkins was asked, hypothetically, whether journalists should report the presence of American commandos if they discovered them in an Afghan village. "You smoke 'em out, you report it," Jenkins said. "I don't represent the government. I represent history, information, what happened."
Later, NPR put out a statement assuring listeners that neither NPR nor Jenkins would "engage in reporting that would put in peril the lives of U.S. military personnel."
Both Westin and Jenkins were trying to make a legitimate argument for journalistic values and credibility. But the truth is, journalists cannot, nor should they want to detach themselves from all allegiances and moral certitudes. The truth is, no one would believe it.
Certainly the American public sees no mandatory correlation between neutrality and credibility. And a sobering Gallup Poll in USA Today makes it clear that international audiences bring their own cultural baggage to perceptions of reality. Despite almost universal agreement on who the terrorists were and where they come from, most of those polled in nine Muslim countries could not believe the Sept. 11 terrorists were Arabs.
Should journalists report accurately on how others perceive the United States as the "Satan" of the world? Absolutely. If we Americans are to win the war on terrorism, we will need to know a lot more about how and why so many around the world seem to hate us so, or at least believe we are the insensitive bully in the global village.
Should journalists report negative stories about the U.S. military and government if the information is accurate? Aside from troop security considerations, anything less would be a disservice to our country. In the short term, "the facts" may pose an embarrassment, even a morale problem. But ultimately they allow the ship of state to correct its course.
And that is the point. A good journalist can best be a good American by doing the kind of accurate reporting that better informs the body politic. But it does not mean detaching oneself from any sense of national identity or moral certitude. On the contrary, many of us pursued careers in journalism with a sense of "service" or even "duty" not so different from that of a soldier or police officer. You serve your country by providing accurate information, the fuel that powers the democratic engine.
Sometimes it involves risk. Sometimes it involves reporting negative information about our leaders and our leading institutions. But it is done in no small part because we are Americans, with a core of shared values.
DESIGN ITALICIZE THE FOLLOWING UNDER BODY TEXT:
Steve Bell is a professor of telecommunications at Ball State University. He spent 20 years as a correspondent and anchorman for ABC News.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
