|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Journalism's Dangerous Patriotism |
Current rating: 0 |
by Salim Muwakkil
(No verified email address) |
18 Feb 2002
Modified: 22 Feb 2002 |
|
Those who criticize this flagrantly unprofessional behavior have been ignored, ridiculed or condemned for lack of patriotism. And in many places, specifically the Fox News Channel (which has distinguished itself by dispatching the cartoonish Geraldo Rivera to Afghanistan), some newsreaders and journalists sport American flag lapel pins. A virtual Old Glory can be spotted waving in a corner of the video frame. |
Some American journalists covering the war on terrorism have abandoned themselves to the patriotic passions of the times so enthusiastically and so uncritically that they apparently have forgotten their role as the Fourth Estate.
Those who criticize this flagrantly unprofessional behavior have been ignored, ridiculed or condemned for lack of patriotism. And in many places, specifically the Fox News Channel (which has distinguished itself by dispatching the cartoonish Geraldo Rivera to Afghanistan), some newsreaders and journalists sport American flag lapel pins. A virtual Old Glory can be spotted waving in a corner of the video frame.
These public patriots fail to ask this crucial question: How can one claim to be an impartial chronicler of events in a conflict while loudly proclaiming allegiance to one of the parties? These news shops may consider it good business to showcase their patriotism and, after all, profit is their most important product.
But, aside from the fact that jingoistic journalism is supposed to be an oxymoron, the corporate media's patriotic displays also are endangering the lives of their colleagues.
This open willingness to abandon journalistic ethics is a new phenomenon within the U.S. news media. It's certainly understandable for journalists to feel attached to their home nations. But in their professional work, those personal links should be de-emphasized.
In a war zone, that detachment is even more necessary. A journalist's overt identification with one of the combatants in a conflict easily leads to charges of spying.
Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's abductors have charged he was a CIA or Israeli intelligence (Mossad) agent, all of which has been strongly denied by his employer. A 1976 investigation by a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) found that more than 50 American journalists had worked as CIA agents during the Cold War era. The committee's final report firmly denounced this practice and urged the intelligence community to "permit American journalists and news organizations to pursue their work without jeopardizing their credibility in the eyes of the world through covert use of them."
What's more, journalist groups consistently have urged Congress to prohibit the use of journalists as spies. But Congress hasn't listened and never has restricted the practice.
The issue was raised anew in a 1996 hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Former CIA director John Deutch argued to continue the practice of using journalists as spies. Most journalist groups agreed with CNN's then-president Tom Johnson, who said during the hearing "under no conditions should journalists be used as a cover for spying."
Terry Anderson, the former Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press who was abducted in Lebanon in 1985 and held for nearly seven years, also testified at the hearing. Anderson said "we need an absolute and public blanket ban on recruiting and use of journalists and clergy by any intelligence agencies, and also the use of journalistic cover."
The Justice Department's announcement that the Wall Street Journal had shared intelligence with the U.S. government by turning over the hard drive files of a computer formerly owned by Al Qaeda throws doubt on the fairness of some American journalists.
Those files reportedly chronicled the travels of someone whose itinerary closely resembled that of alleged shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid and, coincidentally, the subject of Daniel Pearl's research. That discovery was followed by Reid's indictment and, a few days later, Pearl's abduction in Pakistan.
For those reasons and more, journalists should keep their tribal colors concealed beneath their professional garb.
Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times: |
See also:
http://www.inthesetimes.com
|
|
It Figures |
by Dana
sparkey909w (nospam) netscape.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Feb 2002
|
|
I have no problem with people speaking there views. I have even been non stop myself with calling police, senators and newspapers to ask why cameras are being placed at intersections on all sides of the street. There are 13 alone on a street in Bellflower Ca but when I read this article you have pointed out not only the reporters bias for country but your own as well. I did not see both sides of the issue here. What I saw were the same biases that we all share. Who is to say the Americans have cornered the market on bias in journalism. When you people who are hate mongers start reporting across the board on us and yourselves at the same time is when I might start listening to your plight. Or is this forum for non Americans only. I am sure this will never reach any ears but the person who goes though email comments which doesn't surprise me or any other person who wants truth not just your slanderous views. When you people start giving imformation without your unbiased spin on it is when free intelligent people just might start listening. I would also like to add that as I was reading you letter I was looking for race of writer because it is so obvious when reading something of this nature that 90% of the time I have personally found that countries who take care of themselves such as Germany, England, Canada etc. they protest things but not on a level of he hit me first so I have to hit them back. Those countries who are so vocal and love to burn our flag are the same countries who take billions of dollars to live and breath cause if not for us you sure wouldn't take up the slack probably because you are one of those countries. So go ahead and protest us all you want if you think for one second that I don't get disgusted every day from the rhetoric Bush spews from his mouth you are kidding but that disgust runs both ways HONEY! So if we are so bad why don't you rise above us and act with a little dignity and people will start listening to you. You people seem to think that everything that happens in other countries are the work of us peons (civilians) what you don't want to talk about is alot of things are done in our name but without consent and we are labeled as the Evil Empire. Well we have to wait 4 yrs to correct mistakes at least we don't have to wait for them to die like countries who don't allow election. Start pointing out some of the good here if you want to be taken seriously when you point out the bad. After all you people all come running to live here and tell us how persecuted you are in you own country and if not for our freedoms no matter how disfunctional they can be at times you wouldn't have been able to have this forum to discuss your views say if we were all Afghanistan. Dana in CA |
