Talk About Ethics

POYNTER ETHICS FELLOWS

Class of 2002 Participants

It's very important for journalists to discuss and debate the quality of news coverage of the U.S./Iraq situation. We asked our 2002 Poynter Ethics Fellows to weigh in -- to model that discussion and debate. The Fellows were asked:

• What's working well with the coverage? When does it measure up as excellent journalism? Examples?

• What's not working? When is journalism failing?

A group of Fellows responded to our questions and to each other by posting to their email list. What follows is their discussion.

Mizanur Rahman, Assistant City Editor - The Virginian-Pilot

Mizanur Rahman: "Let's not forget context"

I think one key point we need to focus in this U.S./Iraq coverage is tone. Is your coverage going to be dispassionate, thoughtful and instructive or are you going to, in essence, cheerlead? My paper ran a headline from President Bush's most recent make-the-case-against-Irag speech in Cincinnati with the headline, "Saddam is 'murderous tyrant,' Bush tells Nation." Well, tell me something I don't know. I don't expect the president to break news and say Saddam is an angel. That's basically the same variation of a headline we've run probably a half-dozen times. Why not go with a less visceral headline like one paper's "Bush cites urgent Iraqi threat"?

In addition to tone, let's not forget context. Papers like mine are relying on the Post and The New York Times for its national coverage. But we should make sure to include those papers' analysis pieces that take a deeper look at the story. The Post's Dana Milbank did a piece for Tuesday's paper that talked about the politics and rationale behind the speech, talked about how there was nothing new in the speech and how the White House was concerned about dwindling public support for the war. Those are important things for readers to know.

Peter McKay, Staff Reporter - The Wall Street Journal

Peter McKay: "Networks are really falling down on the journalistic job"

The coverage of last night's presidential speech disappointed me greatly in at least one major respect.

I happened to see the speech -- I'll admit -- mostly because I had tuned into Fox early to watch the baseball playoff game, and that network aired the speech immediately beforehand. At the time, I just assumed the other networks were doing the same.

According to the Times, the White House didn't ask for TV time because they didn't want to fuel speculation that military action against Iraq is imminent. But on the other hand, I think the networks are really falling down on the journalistic job if it's not readily apparent to them, without being asked, that such a speech is newsworthy enough to air. Also, maybe the conspicuous lack of a White House request should have increased, not decreased, the networks' motivation to air the speech for the sake of not playing into a possible administration agenda of "spin by omission."

As it is, one has to wonder how much the issue of lost prime-time ad revenue came into play in the networks' decision not to air the speech live.

On the plus side, as much as the Times has taken heat for pushing an anti-war agenda in its news coverage, I thought their lead speech story conveyed the essence of President Bush's message accurately. There were also several good sidebars, of course, including the one on the network coverage.

DeWayne Wickham, Columnist - USA Today/Gannett News Service

DeWayne Wickham: "I am struck by the lack of diversity"

I've got a couple of thoughts on this matter. I am struck by the lack of diversity among the journalists on the Sunday morning talking head shows, especially when they take up the issue of war with Iraq. I suspect that because of this, there is little talk about the disparate impact that this conflict will have in this country. During the Vietnam War the burden of fighting -- and dying -- was spread widely among the people of this nation. For that reason, most Americans were stakeholders in that conflict.

Today, there is very little media discussion about the consequences of using a volunteer military (disproportionately comprised of southern whites and African Americans) to fight this war. I think it is easier for many Americans to support this looming conflict because there's no chance of their sons being drafted into battle. And I believe it is easy for members of Congress to give the president the authority he wants to wage war because the vast majority of their constituents won't have their lives, or those of family members, disrupted by a military draft. These are issues that the journalists on the Sunday morning shows aren't addressing.

Also, it bothers me that journalists seem to be doing a lot of recounting of what government officials say about their reasons for a possible military action against Iraq and not enough reporting on these issues. Too many journalists are simply repeating what the Bush administration says about Iraq and far too few seem to be interested in questioning its judgment in this matter. It was just this kind of "patriotic journalism" that missed the early warning signs in Vietnam and that has kept most news organizations from reporting on how this country once showered Saddam Hussein with military assistance and intelligence -- or how Afghanistan's Talibans are an offshoot of the Mujahideen that the CIA bankrolled for years.

I believe journalists serve this democracy best in times like these not as a cheering squad for our leaders, but rather as a buffer against the excesses of unrestrained patriotism.

Peter McKay, Staff Reporter - The Wall Street Journal

DeWayne's message reminds me of another underreported issue that's caught my attention, albeit one that lends itself more to the hawkish side of the Iraq question.

President Bush mentioned last night that, on 720 occasions, Iraq has fired at planes patrolling the no-fly zone mandated by the treaty that ended the Gulf War. That number sounded like a bit of news to me, because it provided quantifiable detail. In general, though, I first remember this problem surfacing well before 9/11, toward the end of the Clinton administration, when the president ordered airstrikes because Iraq had targeted U.S. planes on its radar-guided weapons systems. (These strikes were distinct from the infamous "Wag the Dog" bombings, which happened a few years earlier, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal, because Iraq wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in.)

My question is, why in most cases does the government just let this go on without response, and why is it not more widely reported by journalists? To me, it's a big deal for a U.S. aircraft to be fired upon while conducting a non-combat mission in full accordance with an international treaty. Let alone, to have this happen 720 times!!! Haven't wars been started over a lot less than this?

DeWayne Wickham, Columnist - USA Today/Gannett News Service

Peter,

This might answer your question: I heard a member of Congress say recently that the no-fly zones are not part of the peace agreement. They were unilaterally imposed by the U.S. and Britain initially to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq. I don't know if this is true, but it's worth looking into.

More to your point -- and one I made in my message -- journalists should try to independently verify Bush's assertion that there were 720 attempts to shoot down U.S. and British planes. Before we repeat his charge, we should do some reporting to see if there is good reason to believe him.

Back in 1962, Lyndon Johnson went on TV to tell the nation that North Vietnamese gunboats had launched unprovoked attacks on two larger U.S. war ships in international waters. He used this "provocation" to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed by Congress. It gave Johnson the authority to change the U.S. role in Vietnam from that of a small detachment of military advisers to one of a large offensive force which remained there for nearly a decade.

At the time, most journalists didn't think to question the truthfulness of what Johnson said, but we learned much later that the U.S. warships were actually supporting raids against North Vietnamese coastal targets by South Vietnamese gunboats.

My point here is that presidents lie.

Richard Nixon lied to the nation about his role in Watergate. It's a good bet that Ronald Reagan lied about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair, which was hatched in the basement of his White House. When George Bush-the-first became president he quickly pardoned everyone involved in the Iran-Contra Affair (which he was rumored to have had a hand in as vice president) thwarting the investigative efforts of the independent counsel's office and eliminating any chance that he might have to lie under oath about his role in that affair. And finally, Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Skip Foster, Editor - The Shelby Star

Skip Foster: "I think it's a little too convenient to blame this on patriotism in the press"

I agree with DeWayne that top-notch journalism is lacking on this topic, although I think it reflects an overall weakness in craft rather than a patriotic bias.

For instance, I agree that somebody should absolutely check out the president's claim that there were 700-some-odd attacks on Allied aircraft. But I don't think a failure to check that out has anything to do with patriotism. It's just lousy, lazy reporting.

I think DeWayne's story ideas are excellent -- on the demographic makeup of the (albeit volunteer) military, of our past contributions to those we now call evil, etc. I would like to see more reporting on other areas, too.

For instance, what kind of damage could Iraq inflict if it possesses the weapons stockpile the administration says it does? What would an attack on our country look like? What would this war look like? How would the Mideast look if Iraq's power surged unchecked by the UN or U.S.?

I think the same shallow reporting which infects coverage of our nation's domestic issues is magnified on the issue of war. It's not about where the 2004 presidential candidates fall on the issue, it's about how real the threat is and how steep the price could be. I'm sure some stories are being done in all these areas, but I doubt many filter down to the Average Joe.

But again, I think it's a little too convenient to blame this on patriotism in the press. First, it assigns a motive which simply can't be proven. I know of no research which shows that the press is in favor of this action or that there is widespread media support of President Bush. If we're going to criticize lazy reporting, we can't back up our positions by simply creating a truth (like a press corps blinded by patriotism) without any factual backing.

While it may be logical to assume that there is some trepidation among members of the press when it comes to being critical of the war effort, I think the issue of whether or not we go to war is enough "in play" that that point is highly debatable.

Second, I think the "patriotic press" theory is a clever way of claiming that people who disagree with the anti-war position, "just need to be educated," which is a great pet peeve of mine. In other words, the logic would go like this: "The public has taken a position, I think that position is wrong, so they must not have all the facts." It makes that pill a lot easier to swallow if a conscious or sub-conscious pro-war or pro-patriotism bias of the press is helping to perpetuate the problem.

Mizanur Rahman, Assistant City Editor - The Virginian-Pilot

But Skip, it can't work both ways. What about when the press gets charged with liberal -- instead of patriotic -- bias, and some of us say, no, it's not being liberal, but just unintelligent, weak reporting? That argument gets dismissed by critics.

Skip Foster, Editor - The Shelby Star

Yes, but I think one can (and various authors have) proven that there is a bias -- i.e. a recent study on percent of journalists who voted for Clinton, other independent studies on the use of "right-wing" vs. "left-wing" etc. There simply isn't any factual basis that I know of to support the claim of a patriotic bias in the media.

Mizanur Rahman, Assistant City Editor - The Virginian-Pilot

Skip,

That often-cited study of journalists who voted for Clinton was done by the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center. And how it's used as the smoking gun of the liberal bias is beyond me. Consortium News, which is an independent, non-profit journalism organization, reported in '97 or '98 that out of 323 surveys sent out for that study, only 139 were returned, about 33 percent. And the folks surveyed came from the press credentials list of a Congressional press organization. I don't think 139 of these journalists is representative of the entire Washington Press corps, which in turn is certainly not fairly representative of all journalists nationally.

But you're right, there are other more credible studies that show that generally members of the American media tilt toward the liberal side. But of course, they argue that they don't let those biases affect their news decision-making. And of course, therein lies the real debate!!!!!:)

DeWayne Wickham, Columnist - USA Today/Gannett News Service

Skip,

I didn't mean to cast too wide a net in my reference to the "patriotic press," but it is my observation that that label fits a lot of journalists who seem less concerned with ferreting out the truth than cheering on the U.S. and jeering Saddam.

You're wrong to suggest that I use the "patriotic press" term to berate "people who disagree with the anti-war position." What I meant, is what I said. I would ask you to accept that ... not reinterpret my words.

For the record, I know the difference between those who simply "talk the talk" and those who "walk the walk" when it comes to patriotism. Unlike many of the chicken hawks in government who are now lining up to send someone else's children off to war, I not only served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, I voluntarily joined the military and earned a Vietnam Service Medal while many of them were hunkered down in college or in the National Guard.

Bode Opeseitan, Internet Editor - Nigerian Tribune

Bode Opeseitan: "The media has a duty to enrich the well of public opinion"

I share the views expressed by Skip that the not-too-impressive performance of the US media in the coverage of the US/Iraq situation has more to do with sleazy and lazy reporting than with patriotism. One of the TV networks once aired a report in which Bush said the reason he was going after Saddam was because he tried to kill his dad.

A probing media, in my view, should have done an extensive report on this and established whether or not the decision by the Bush administration to attack Iraq was motivated by a desire to settle personal scores or whether it was an urgent and genuine attempt to uproot the "murderous tyrant" Saddam before he attacks America with his weapons of mass destruction.

Besides, Bush is known in Texas by knowledgeable sources as a man who rarely rescinds his decision once he has made up his mind, even if there was a compelling reason to back down. The media has also not done a good job of focusing attention on the concern that the plan is an attempt to divert attention from the faltering economy on the eve of the November elections.

While many Americans believe that the US has never taken a pre-emptive action before, a Republican Senator said yesterday on "Larry King Live" on CNN that the US had taken such action nine times in the past, and he promised to hand over a paper he had to that effect to Larry King after the programme.

These are just few instances of the failure of the media to adequately inform Americans on this issue. If the media had, for instance, detailed such previous pre-emptive strikes, the Americans who went about proclaiming that the US had never taken a pre-emptive action before would not have been so deeply uninformed. The media is obligated to detail previous pre-emptive strikes, if there had been any, and the reasons.

Be that as it may, I notice that the coverage of the US/Iraq issue has improved lately. I read a recent edition of USA Today where they did an in-depth analysis of factors in favour and against a pre-emptive strike. A recent CNN poll also showed that 49 percent of Americans were not convinced the Bush administration had made a compelling case against the plan to attack Iraq.

The media has a duty to enrich the well of public opinion with in-depth news and analysis. They should not poison that well with a culture of questionable consent.

If America goes to war against Iraq without Americans having a fair knowledge of the human and material consequences of the war, it is a failure of the American media because it is their duty to adequately inform the citizenry about the actions of their government.

Like DeWayne has been saying, where will the body bags come from? What is the position of the southern white and black folks on the issue? The folks may even say, "If that is all it will take to stop Saddam in his tracks, so be it." But it is important to also reflect their views and other important issues on this issue not just feeding the public with the "spin" from government.

It is important to properly reflect the views of the Generals who felt the war would be much more difficult than anticipated. It is important to reflect the views of those who wanted the US to work with the international community like they did during the first Gulf War when the US only funded the $61 billion war to the tune of $7 billion, while the rest was underwritten by the international community.

Why is the international community not convinced by the Bush argument? Is it true that the international community will fall in line like a puppet once the U.S. unilaterally strikes Iraq as claimed by Ashcroft? What will the U.S. lose if it adopts the French position on the issue? These are some of the issues I think the media should be addressing. This is my humble submission.

DeWayne Wickham, Columnist - USA Today/Gannett News Service

Skip,

I want to be as clear as possible. It's not the possibility of war that bothers me. If this country must go to war with Iraq or any other nation to defend our freedoms and our way of life, I don't have a problem with that. What troubles me is that I sincerely believe George W. Bush has manufactured an excuse for war with Iraq - and that bothers me greatly.

Take a look at The New York Times story today in which the CIA director contradicts the assertion the president made in his speech Monday that if the US doesn't act soon Iraq is likely to attack us. And have you looked into his suggestion that Iraq might use its unmanned drones to rain chemical or biological weapons upon us? You might want to look into the range of those drones. It might surprise you to know they can't get here from there.

Now is the time for journalists to look seriously at these matters -- and that's what I am urging all of my colleagues to do.