The failures of U.S. journalists in wartime
Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert Jensen 2003
Message:
internationale Fachzeitschrift für Journalismus (Germany),
April 2003.
by Robert Jensen
Citizens most desperately need a
critical, independent journalism when nations prepare to go to war. As the
United States -- the unchallenged power with the most destructive military
capacity in the history of the world -- has prepared to go to war against Iraq,
never has such journalism been more important.
And in that moment, never have U.S.
journalists so profoundly failed in that endeavor, with potentially dire
consequences not just for Americans and Iraqis, but for the whole world.
It’s almost universally accepted that
independent journalism is crucial to the functioning of democracy. Without
sources of information outside the dominant centers of power (both public and
private, the government and corporations), citizens cannot play a meaningful
role in the formation of public policy.
For reasons well documented in decades
of progressive media criticism and scholarship, the contemporary mainstream
commercial news media in the United States is increasingly unable to practice a
truly independent journalism capable of basic critique. The reasons can be
summarized quickly: The effects of (1) the for-profit and corporate organization
of the dominant media operations, dependent on advertising revenue; (2)
entrenched professional journalistic routines that overwhelming privilege
official sources of news and the point-of-view of the dominant powers in the
society; and (3) the peculiar ideology of American exceptionalism and nobility
that distorts both the gathering and presentation of news.
To critique the current coverage of the
Bush administration’s war project, it’s important to establish criteria for
good coverage. What should citizens expect from their journalists?
If citizens are to participate in the
formation of public policy in a meaningful way (that is, something more than
just voting for the political candidates whose ads and PR campaign they like
best), news media must provide:
--a trustworthy source of factual
information gathered independently;
--the historical, political, economic,
and social context that will help citizens make sense of the facts; and
--the widest possible range of opinion
available in the society.
Independent information is crucial. In
any complex society, centers of power will use their control of institutions and
propaganda techniques to establish the facts they present as authoritative.
Journalists must be able to gather and present facts from outside those official
sources. U.S. journalists are free to do that -- and the good reporters in the
United States take advantage of that freedom -- but the bulk of the information
transmitted by the mainstream news media comes directly from those power
centers. Because that information is relatively cheap and easy to gather, and
comes with the authoritative stamp of officials, journalists rely on such
information to form the backbone of the day’s news report.
This problem has been exacerbated since
Sept. 11, 2001, in part because of the administration’s use of ever more
sophisticated propaganda techniques. In the run-up to a war in Iraq, it is
stunning how much of cable and broadcast television news programs are simply the
direct transmission of government information to viewers, often unchallenged by
the journalists.
Citizens’ troubles are compounded by
the failure of mainstream commercial news media to provide the crucial context
and background. Everyone realizes that facts by themselves do not necessarily
help people come to understand a complex situation. History and political
context are necessary. But -- reflecting an intellectual crisis that pervades
all of U.S. culture -- little of that context is offered. The United States is a
notably ahistorical and insular culture; foreign visitors are typically
dumbfounded by American’s lack of knowledge of the world and its history.
Certainly journalists can’t be expected to fill all these knowledge gaps, but
even crucial contemporary history is routinely ignored in U.S. news media
reports.
These first two points can be
demonstrated by journalists’ treatment of one of the benefits that Bush
administration officials claim would come from a war in Iraq -- the creation of
a democracy, much in the same way we are told that the war in Afghanistan
brought democracy to that country. This claim is made by officials and
transmitted with virtually no critique by journalists.
But a few problems arise. First, the
facts on the ground (which can be found in the coverage in the press outside of
the United States) in Afghanistan conflict with the U.S. story. The loyal jirga
process that led to the creation of the current government of Hamid Karzai was
manipulated by the United States to ensure that former king Zahir Shah, who was
favored by many Afghans to return as a unifying force, was pushed out of the
picture. Strong-arming delegates to make sure a U.S.-approved leader was chosen
is hardly an auspicious beginning for “democracy.” The U.S. media has also
largely ignored the current conditions in Afghanistan -- the country remains
dominated by warlords and fundamentalist religious fanatics, women’s rights
have made only small advances, and the drug trade is back in full force. All
these facts, reported by journalists outside the United States, are largely
unknown to Americans. Is democracy in Iraq going to be constructed on the Afghan
model?
A bit of history would also raise
doubts about the U.S. commitment to democracy in the Middle East. Currently our
closest allies in the region are Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, whose
thoroughly undemocratic regimes have long enjoyed American protection; Jordan,
whose king took over from his father with no hint of democratic process; and
Egypt, whose “president” won his last non-election with 94 percent of the
vote in a system that clamps down harshly on dissent and political opposition.
Through its economic assistance and military power, the United States has lots
of influence on these countries, and inquiring reporters might raise the
question of how this history of supporting undemocratic regimes jibes with U.S.
officials’ calls for democracy in Iraq.
On the final standard -- the airing of
a wide range of opinion -- the failure of U.S. news media is most obvious. Even
a cursory viewing of the television news shows or reading of newspaper opinion
pages reveals that current and former government officials and military officers
dominate, along with university-based academics and think-tank “scholars”
who overwhelmingly take positions in line with those officials. A typical
“debate” over the war has pitted super-hawks (who want to bomb Iraq
immediately without any concern for the United Nations or international law)
against cautious hawks (who are happy to bomb but would prefer that the
administration secure another U.N. Security Council resolution first). Real
dissent from the dominant view is almost never heard, and when critics are
allowed to speak they are often treated as marginal and given no chance to
articulate a critique (I know this from experience, having been a guest on a
half dozen cable television news talks shows after 9/11).
All these failures can be seen most
clearly by looking at the treatment in the U.S. news media of the question of
oil. It is widely assumed around the world that a U.S. war in Iraq will be in
part about expanding U.S. control over the oil resources of the Middle East. Yet
in the U.S. media one finds virtually no reporting on that question, no
systematic attempt to relate the history of U.S. policy, and no airing of
opinion from critics who argue that it is the motive force behind this war.
Instead, we hear a parade of Bush officials deny that the U.S. policy has
anything to do with the strategic control of oil, which journalists dutifully
report and almost never contest.
My claim is not that U.S. journalists
never make good on their obligation to provide independent information and
critique, but rather that common journalistic practices produce a pattern heavy
on disinformation, misinformation, and missing information. That’s why in a
recent poll a majority of Americans said they supported a war, even without a
U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize the use of force, and at the same
time a majority said the Bush administration has failed to tell them what they
need to know to understand why war is necessary.
It would be unfair to place all the
blame for the current collapse of meaningful democracy in the United States on
journalism; it is the failure of the whole intellectual culture, including the
schools and universities. But journalists -- who routinely claim that they
provide that independent flow of information, context, and opinion that citizens
need -- are responsible for their significant role in this collapse.
More and more U.S. citizens are
realizing the inadequacies of mainstream commercial journalism and are actively
seeking other sources, both in the domestic alternative media and the journalism
produced outside the United States. A critical reading of the mainstream U.S.
press, combined with those other sources, can produce a reasonably complete
picture of the world, but it requires considerable time and effort. The bulk of
American still rely exclusively on the mainstream media for information, which
allows officials to make policy with support from a population that often does
not have the information needed to evaluate the policy.
This critique should be taken as an
attack on all journalists or the craft of journalists. Many U.S. journalists do
fine work even with these constraints. As a former working journalist, a
freelance writer, and professor of journalism, I have great affection for the
craft. But is clear that the structural constraints, the limitations of current
professional journalists norms, and the crippling ideological blinders common in
the United States have -- on the whole -- left journalists unable to make good
on their own claims about their role in democracy.
Because a U.S. war could have
disastrous consequences for the people of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world,
the failures of U.S. journalism weigh particularly heavy on the world. Without a
fully informed public that can transform information and critique into political
action to constrain the U.S. government, the future looks particularly grim.
Robert Jensen is a founding member of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com), a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of “Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream.” He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
BACK TO ROBERT W. JENSEN'S HOME PAGE