Jewish World Review Oct. 29, 2001 / 12 Mar-Cheshvan, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish' -- TO what do journalists covering this war owe their loyalty?

The Journalism 101 answer is: to the story. But what happens when getting out the story means jeopardizing the legitimate war aims of the United States -- or the lives of American soldiers?

The answer to that question is: Some journalists put their country and countrymen first -- and some don't.

On Sept. 28, USA Today became the first American paper to break the story that US commandos were operating inside Afghanistan. That didn't come as news to the Knight Ridder news organization: Its Washington bureau had known for a week that Green Berets and Navy SEALS were in the war zone. So why didn't Knight Ridder beat USA Today to the punch and claim the scoop for itself?

Because, wrote Bureau Chief Clark Hoyt to the editors of Knight Ridder's 32 dailies, "When we sought Pentagon comment, we were asked not to publish the story on the grounds that it could endanger the lives of the servicemen involved." Hoyt said he and his staff "had a conversation about it, not really a very long one, and decided not to publish." The memo promised aggressive coverage of the war, but stressed that in one area the bureau's journalistic decisions would be "very conservative -- and that is reporting about . . . military operations when American lives could literally hang in the balance."

Hoyt's memo was quoted in a column written by one of the editors it was sent to, Walter Lundy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "He's right," Lundy commented. "We are loath to keep anything from our readers but when people's lives are at stake, what's to debate? You wait."

Contrast Hoyt's and Lundy's attitude with that of Loren Jenkins, the senior foreign editor of National Public Radio. Talking with Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune, Jenkins said he had ordered his reporters to track down the American special forces. "The game of reporting is to smoke 'em out," he said.

Johnson pressed him. What if NPR reporters discovered the whereabouts of an American commando unit and the Pentagon says that disclosing the information could put the troops' lives at risk. What would the network do?

"You report it," Jenkins replied. "I don't represent the government. I represent history, information, what happened." And the warnings from the military? Jenkins brushed them aside. "They never tell you the truth."

That attitude -- the story is what matters, not the servicemen -- exemplifies what Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center calls journalism's "neutrality fetish." It isn't just Jenkins. Last month ABC News prohibited its reporters from wearing US flag lapel pins. "We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause," the network spokesman said, "through some sort of outward symbol.

When CNN's Bernard Shaw returned from Baghdad in 1991, having witnessed the outbreak of the Gulf War, he refused to talk to American debriefers about what he had seen -- because, he said, he had to remain "neutral."

The most infamous expression of this neutrality fetish occurred during a PBS debate in 1989. A hypothetical case was put to Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace: You're covering a war, traveling behind enemy lines with a "North Kosanese" military unit that sets up an ambush to kill a group of Americans. Do you film the ambush, or do you try to warn the Americans?

Jennings answered first. "I think," he said after a long pause, "that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

That appalled Wallace. "I am astonished" that you would interfere, he said to Jennings. "You're a reporter!" But shouldn't a reporter do something, asked the moderator, when his fellow Americans are about to be massacred? Doesn't he have a higher duty than covering the story?

"No," Wallace replied at once. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Jennings backed down. "I wish I had made another decision," he said. "I would like to have made his [Wallace's] decision."

This we're-journalists-not-patriots mindset has so far been largely absent from the current war. NPR's Jenkins is an exception; more common has been the view of Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press," who said in Boston last week, "We are journalists but we are also Americans." A few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Dan Rather went even farther. During an emotional appearance on David Letterman's show, Rather said, speaking of the president, "He wants me to line up, just tell me where."

In times of war, journalists are not supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to be objective. They are supposed to cover developments fairly and accurately, convey information honestly, and report what is relevant.

But it is no part of journalistic integrity not to take sides in a war between the United States and a cruel, fanatic enemy. During World War II, Ernie Pyle and Edward R. Murrow left no doubts about where their sympathies lay. They were great journalists and great patriots. Then as now, it is possible to be both.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2001, Boston Globe