NIGHTLINE VIEW POINT: PATRIOTISM, JOURNALISM, & WAR

NIGHTLINE VIEW POINT: PATRIOTISM, JOURNALISM, & WAR
13862 words
17 January 2003
ABC News: Nightline
NLNE
English
Copyright c 2003 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

graphics: ABC NEWS: Special Edition: Nightline
ANNOUNCER
This is an ABC News Special Edition of “Nightline.”
TED KOPPEL, ABC NEWS
(VO) There are times when everyone is expected to pull in the same direction.
GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
Reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.
DONALD RUMSFELD, US DEFENSE SECRETARY
And it strikes me that how the press handles this new conflict will also contribute to the success of it.
TED KOPPEL
(VO) In times of war, is the first duty of a journalist to his profession or to his country?
MALE ONE, POLITICIAN
CNN’s coverage of Peter Arnett being used as a propaganda tool by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is disgusting, if not treasonous.
MALE TWO, US MILITARY
It’s absolutely imperative to deny the enemy any information on the disposition, actions, or plans of our forces.
TED KOPPEL
(VO) What is the proper balance between the public’s right to know and the nation’s need for security?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR,
CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN
We war reporters would never in conscience reveal things that were supposed to be war secrets.
MALE THREE, TELEVISION REPORTER
The military will decide which battles are seen, and when.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR
What happened during the Gulf War was that the news management was because of image more than because of military security.
TED KOPPEL
(VO) Does it depend on the war?
MALE FOUR, INTERVIEWEE
Censorship was just as important as bullets. Loose lips sink ships.
MALE FIVE, INTERVIEWEE
You never see any problems, you’re never allowed to report, nothing’s ever wrong. And it’s a lie.
TED KOPPEL
(VO) Should press ever hold back? Or is the truth always worth telling?
MALE SIX, INTERVIEWEE
They are worried about the political impact of Americans being able to see what war is like. And I think they have a right to see it, they’re the ones that have to make the decision as to whether to go to war or not.
graphics: View Point: Patriotism, Journalism, & War
ANNOUNCER
This is ABC News “Viewpoint: Patriotism, Journalism, and War.” Reporting live from the National Defense University and Fort McNair in Washington, DC, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) If that’s really how this debate is going to be framed, journalist or patriot, where should our allegiance lie, the reporters among us should go home right now. But we crafted the opening to the broadcast deliberately to reflect criticisms that are often leveled against the media, that we put breaking news ahead of national security, that we pretend to occupy some lofty neutral perch between the United States and its enemies as though the two sides were moral equivalents, that criticism of the US military in a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s not that simple. And it’s our hope that over the next 90 minutes or so, a spirited discussion between representatives of the media and the military will generate not just heat by also a little light. We know, believe me, we know, that without the strength and sacrifice of the US military, there would be no press freedom. None of would choose to change places with an Iraqi colleague. We understand that our ability to report events during a war cannot be allowed to jeopardize the security of American troops.
TED KOPPEL (CONTINUED)
(OC) But we will also argue that security cannot be used as a catch- all argument to stifle the reporting of bad news when it happens. A free press can be a source of aid and comfort to our enemies but it is also a potent weapon in democracy’s arsenal. You’ll never find even a hint of a difference between the positions of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi media. But then who, with the freedom to exercise the option, believes either one? We have a lot to talk about this evening and some excellent panelists to engage the issues. General George Joulwan, the former NATO commander and a consultant to ABC News. General Walt Boomer, who commanded the Marine forces during the Gulf War. And Rear Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli, US Navy Chief of Information. To my right, Kate Adie, chief news correspondent, BBC News. Tony Snow, the host of “Fox News Sunday.” David Martin, national security correspondent for CBS News. And David Westin, President of ABC News. And let us begin now with what I suggest, General Boomer, may be one of the most contentious questions. In the course of your long and distinguished military career, how many times did an American journalist jeopardize the security of any troops under your command or to your knowledge?
GEN WALTER BOOMER,
(RETIRED) COMMANDER US MARINE CORPS IN DESERT STORM
Not once.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Has anyone had another experience? General Joulwan?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN,
(RETIRED), ABC NEWS CONSULTANT
No, I can’t recall when it would jeopardize an operation that I’ve had, both in Vietnam and most recently in the Balkans.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) To what then, Admiral Pietropaoli, do you attribute the tensions that, and I think I can fairly say that they have grown over the past 30 years, particularly after Vietnam?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI,
US NAVY CHIEF OF INFORMATION
I think that the tension is less about real anecdotal evidence that it ever comes that way than that the clash of priorities for the two institutions. For the military, even those like my colleagues here who have had positive experiences and in fact have been very open to access by the press, it’s still about accomplishing the mission first. And accomplishing the mission while you are handling, dealing with, and might be distracted by, the presence of news media is at minimum a distraction and theoretically, a critical distracter at a key time. So I think it’s really just a clash of institutional values that, in practice, most frequently works out just fine.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Tony Snow, you have served both in an Administration, you were speechwriter I believe, . . .
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS SUNDAY
That’s right, for the first President Bush.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) For the first President Bush. And you’ve been a journalist for most of your professional career. To what do you attribute the tension? I mean, let’s get to some of the nitty-gritty issues here.
TONY SNOW
Well, I think there are a couple of things. One, there’s a culture at issue. It used to be that young men of an age in America had some military experience. And for the last 30 years that has decreasingly been the case. So, the generation that entered journalism before I did had some military experience, they understood what it was like to be on a base. They understood the parameters of military service and they had a sense of what was involved and they had a certain, sense of what troops were going through. You go back to World War II and Ernie Pyle. Here’s a guy who was the sentinel of the working man, he always talked about the families back home, but he also got kicked out of a couple of theaters of battle for being a little too persistent in seeking out the facts. But there was an understanding. Now, a lot of times, if a journalist goes onto a military base, it’s probably a once in a lifetime experience, they’ve been to zoos more often than they’ve been to military bases. And they don’t see a lot of difference between the two. And I think that, has been one of the problems over the years, is just a clash of cultures, where you have people talking past one another. Now, once somebody gets into a theater of battle, all of a sudden they decide it’s a lot better to be familiar with the soldiers.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) You bet. Kate Adie, we’re not only happy to have a woman on the panel, but since the Brits may be our only allies in this war, we wanted to have a Brit with us here, too. I take it you think that we in the American media are a bunch of pussy cats when it comes to dealing with our military and our government?
KATE ADIE, CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT, BBC NEWS
I think you’re much more concerned with patriotism and you take to it more naturally, in a more open way than we do. Not that we are not patriotic. We haven’t had a war of national survival for over 50 years, and that’s where I think the real problem and tension arises for us. If you go on military adventures, and we go on many, more than the Americans. Give a bunch of small islands down the South Atlantic and we’ll go down and get them back. And we’ll interfere in anybody else’s war. We are rather quite keen at that sort of thing. But we are not in the business of war of national survival and haven’t been for a long time.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Well, we aren’t either, are we?
KATE ADIE
That’s where the tension arises, that journalists would be totally patriotic in a war of national survival. But would not be, or could not be, if they were doing their journalistic job properly if there were points to be raised, questions to be asked about a military operation or adventure.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David Westin, let me come to you on a question that neither you nor I have particular expertise on, but you’ve got to deal with it more than I do. And that is the new technology. When we were in Vietnam, 32, 33 years ago, and we were covering what you guys were doing, it wouldn’t get on the air until two and a half days after we had covered it in the field. It had to be shipped from Saigon, from Saigon to Tokyo, from Tokyo to Los Angeles, from Los Angeles to New York. And then it was processed and then it was edited and then it would go on the air. These days, it’s all live. Or much of it is live. And we have new capacities that the American public has barely seen yet, that raise problems that I suspect our friends to my left here have to be very concerned about. Talk about that for a moment and the degree to which it causes you concern about what we do and how we do it.
DAVID WESTIN, PRESIDENT ABC NEWS
I think it’s a problem not just for our friends to your left, but also potentially for us because the fact that we have the capability to go live doesn’t necessarily make it right to go live. We do have an editorial function to fulfill, not just a news gathering function. And I think, first of all, we don’t know whether this new technology’s gonna work, a lot of it. We think it may and we don’t know until we get over there in a true battle situation to know whether it’s going to work. But assuming it does, I think we’re gonna have to make some very difficult judgments about what we’re willing to put on live, as opposed to taking the time to review and decide what’s there, what is news worthy? What do the American people really need to know? What’s important to them? And then air it. And that’s gonna be a big challenge for us.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) You and David Martin and I have a luxury that some of our colleagues on the cable networks don’t have. We can make a decision, or you can make that decision for us, folks, we’re not gonna go live. We’re gonna wait until we’ve had a chance to sort through this material, until we’ve had a chance to separate the wheat from the chaff. David, the folks over, David Martin, the folks over at our colleagues at CNN and MSNBC and Fox Cable, who are on the air 24/seven, they can put it on the air right away and they do. What problems does that raise?
DAVID MARTIN,
NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS
Well, let’s face it, we would too, in a highly competitive story like war.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) For the first couple of days, until the money started to bite a little bit and then they’d want to put their commercials and their, prime time shows on again.
DAVID MARTIN
And I think we’re all gonna be making those same split-2nd decisions for the first, pick your number of hours, 72 hours. The longer you do it, the greater the chance for error. But the cable networks have gotten pretty good at that, at being pretty calm and judicious about what they put on the air. I think it’s been a long time since I was aware of videotape rolling on the air where nobody knew what it was. It just, they just knew it was coming in from where ever the war was. So, it seems to me, even though the competition to be first is there, people are adding at least a moment’s reflection before they go with it.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) We’re not even talking, Admiral, about tape that is being rolled live on the air, we have little portable satellite dishes now that’s gonna make it possible for us to go on the air live as the action is under way. If I were a, military officer or leader, I would be terribly concerned about what that does.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
And I think that they’ll have, and we’ve discussed this with the bureau chiefs and the coverage for possible contingencies, there will be controls. It’s not gonna be, if you’re with US forces, that we’ve taken you along, you’re not going to necessarily be able to go live if a tactical situation puts troops at risk. On the other hand, that live communication back to the American people whose support for our efforts and our objectives is pretty critical to an overall success. You can have all the military successes on battlefield you want, if it’s not defined for your public as a, success, you haven’t achieved your political objective. So, it cuts both ways. And we will have, for the journalists that are with us, that are accompanying us, some measure of control over when they go live and when they don’t.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) I’ve got a ton of questions to ask all of you, but I want to involve members of our audience as quickly as possible. Go ahead, sir.
CAPTAIN TOM NEFF, AUDIENCE MEMBER
Evening. My name is Captain Tom Neff. I had a question specifically to the senior military leadership. I’d like to hear their opinion about the public perception, sometimes, that the national media leans a little bit to the left and whether you feel that impacts not only what they report but how they report that?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
Well, let me take a stab at that. Let me put it this way, I think there’s always, you have to consider there’s always, let me use the word “adversarial” relationship between the media and the military. And I think that’s good, I think that’s healthy in a democracy. Whether that’s leaning to the left or right or whatever side of political spectrum you want to go on, but I think you have to consider that you could be friends but you could always, you must always remember that there is this adversarial relationship and I think it’s good. I’ve always said, the first report as a military commander is always wrong, or normally wrong. The media normally gets that report and goes with it. And sometimes it is wrong. Whether that’s left or right, I just say that’s part of the technology we have today, the 24/seven of cable news, and that we and you all that are coming up in the military need to recognize that’s what you’re gonna have to live with. It’s not gonna go away and what you need to is develop the sort of relationship with the media that you can work together whenever you get committed, . . .
TED KOPPEL
(OC) We’ve got to go to a commercial break, but before we do Captain, maybe I’m drawing an inference you didn’t mean to imply. There’s sort of a suggestion here, you know, 20, 30 years ago we might have said, those “pinko liberals with their agenda.” What do you mean when you’re talking about the left these days in the current political climate?
CAPTAIN TOM NEFF
Well, I think, you know, I’ve heard a lot that, you know, that there’s certain, you know, polls that have been taken, that a certain, great percentage of the media tend to vote Democratic.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let’s say for the sake of argument you’re absolutely right.
CAPTAIN TOM NEFF
And whether that would impact their reporting or not.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let’s say for the argument you’re right, what impact does that have on the relationship between the press and the military? All right. We’ll go to a commercial break and come back a little later.
commercial break
graphics: Patriotism, Journalism, & War
TED KOPPEL
(OC) With characteristic media sneakiness I asked the Captain, a question he wasn’t prepared for. But you got a couple of folks here who, one wants to throw you a lifeline, I don’t know what General Boomer wants to do, go ahead, General.
GEN WALTER BOOMER
Part of the problem, Captain, is that we don’t know each other very well and there’s very little opportunity to get to know each other. And I’m talking about the media and the military. What I’ve found is that once we get to know each other a little better, some of those perceived differences go away. Now, we’re a pretty conservative group in the military, but from my perspective it really doesn’t make any difference if the media’s a little to the left of us, if you want to use that term. We just have to, as General Joulwan said, learn how to work together, because we’re gonna have to, whether you like it or not.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Tony?
TONY SNOW
Yeah, a couple points, Captain. Number one, right now in the United States, we’re not that deeply divided on partisan lines about whether people are gonna support the military should it come to a war in Iraq. Now, as Kate pointed out, in times when you don’t have a war of national survival, the debate rages whether it’s a justifiable war, whether it’s in the national interest, whether it’s vital, whether it’s worth risking blood and treasure. That’s when you get a partisan divide. We haven’t reached that point yet. The other interesting thing is, there is talk now of imbedding journalists in military forces in Iraq. Well, that changes things as well, because I guarantee you, when the firing starts journalists aren’t gonna be thinking, now, what are they thinking on Capitol Hill? They’re thinking, I’m going to get with somebody who knows what the hell they’re doing and I’m gonna hide, you know. I mean, the fact is, you will suddenly see new relationships because, unlike the Gulf War where a lot of times people were worried about their hair and the camera angle and all that, you’re gonna have folks instead, they’re gonna be on the ground, they’re going to be in military shape. Chances are they’re going to be, you know, they’re gonna be in military dress and there is going to be a much greater understanding. Now, reporters are not always going to be the friends of people who are on the battlefield, in the sense that they may in fact report bad news. But I don’t think the partisan issues are nearly as clear cut on the battlefield as they are here in Capitol Hill. Mainly because, sort of like the joke about faculty lounges, the fighting’s so nasty because the stakes are so small. The stakes are a lot larger in a theater of war.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Captain, do you have anything you want to add?
CAPTAIN TOM NEFF
No. You know, I’m paid to think on my feet and I think I failed in that.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Well, in that case, you’d better retreat to another part of your anatomy. Yes, ma’am?
LT COMMANDER LISA BRACKENBERRY,
AUDIENCE MEMBER
Good evening, sir. Lieutenant Commander Lisa Brackenberry. I think everyone here recognizes that disseminating the news is a very important part of journalism, but you also have to sell the news and it makes it a very competitive business. How, much does the need for sensationalism determine the impact of the quality of news reporting?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Do you, mind if I qualify what you said just a little bit so that I can throw it to my boss because, rather than the need for sensationalism, the need to attract a large and eager audience, how does that grab you? Okay? How much does that affect what we do, David?
DAVID WESTIN
Well, listen, it’s a competitive business and it is a business. And so, no one would believe me if I said it’s simply irrelevant. I think, particularly when we’re talking about the possibly of going to war, which we’re talking about now, that really recedes into the background, in all honesty. I mean, we all, whatever our individual missions are, and we have somewhat different missions, we all realize the importance of a nation going to war and our respective roles in that. And I think we all step it up a notch and we take that very seriously and, that really triumphs over anything else. The other thing I would say is, we shouldn’t underestimate the American people. Our role as journalists in this constitutional democracy is to give people the information they need know in deciding whether we go to war and how we execute a war and things like that. Because, ultimately, it’s up to the people to decide what to do. The American people are interested in these issues. I mean, they care about them and you don’t need to sensationalize them, you don’t need to tart them up somehow. And so, I don’t think we should underestimate our audience, by any means. I don’t think we’ll have any problems having people watching us and listening to us and reading the newspapers and things, if we in fact go to war.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David Martin, do you ever feel any pressure at all to tart it up a little bit? David covers the Pentagon, it’s a little difficult to tart that up, but go ahead.
DAVID MARTIN
Don’t ask, don’t tell. The pressures on me are strictly competitive. Find it out first, ahead your competition. Get it right, get it on the air. And it has zero to do with sensationalism or even making it particularly spiffy so it will attract a large audience. But I recognize I live in a very circumscribed universe over there. And I’m just, I got my head down and I’m going straight ahead on the story, trying to get there before anybody else. And presentation and stuff like that, all falls way, way behind.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Kate?
KATE ADIE
I think there’s one new element coming with the new technology. Everybody wants to get their live dish into position. And so much now is done on the live 2-way of somebody standing in front of a camera saying, I’m here, as if that is an achievement in journalism in itself. And this comes particularly when you insert someone into the enemy base, or capital, or the enemy territory. The fact of being there is trumpeted by the network as a great triumph. The fact that you may have nothing to say or that you have little information is rather secondary. And we’re seeing quite an increase in that. And the 24-hour channels are very keen on saying, our guy there. You know, the fact that he’s just riveting over the same old stuff he’s done for the last 24 hours is really a secondary matter. And it is a cosmetic kind of television coverage. And it is coming with 24-hour coverage.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me go back, General Boomer, to that sound bite that we heard in our opening where a member of Congress, who shall remain mercifully anonymous, was accusing Peter Arnett, who was then sitting in Baghdad during the war, of traitorous behavior. You were out there, you were fighting that war. I don’t know if you saw Peter’s reports, but did you, find them traitorous?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
My view was that if he was stupid enough to be there, it was okay with me. I really didn’t care. I, had so much to think about, as did my colleagues, that it didn’t worry us. And there wasn’t anything that he was doing that was impacting us one way or the other. Plus the fact that he was there really seemed to alienate a lot of people and he was reporting the obvious, so there goes a cruise missile. Well.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me suggest an alternative theory here, that at a time when I suspect you didn’t have a lot of human intelligence on the ground, doesn’t anything that you’re getting out of Baghdad help you just a little bit?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
I’m not sure that Peter offered us very much, but that could be the case. And you’re always craving more intelligence. You never have enough.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Okay. Lady in the back?
LISA ANDERSON, AUDIENCE MEMBER
I’m Lisa Anderson from the Army Management Staff College. I’d like to address this question to anyone on the panel. It seems to me that the national press has access to critical information about military operations and we often, as military journalists, have the same information but we’re prevented from releasing it to our own people. Don’t you think the soldier, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilian employees have the same right to that information?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) General Joulwan?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
I don’t think so. I think coming from a source that’s inside the military is much different than coming from, I believe, a national television network. I think we do have certain responsibilities and I’d like to bring up the word “accountability” on all sides here. And accountability on the military side for protecting the lives of our troops as we’re gonna go into deployments. And I think there’s also accountability on the media side that needs to be recognized and I don’t we, say enough about that. So, I would say there is a difference, in my opinion, between what would be reported by, say, military, journalists and by the national media. But accountability, to me, is very important.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) George, just, beat on that drum a little more, when you talk about accountability, you talk to me, what’s my accountability to you in this regard or to the American public?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
I think David said it, to get it right. If you don’t get it right, what is the accountability on the part of, . . .
DAVID MARTIN
Oh, I’ll give you quick answer on that George, you get toasted in the ratings. It’s terrible, if you go on and you get a war story wrong and you are perceived as a reporter or a network that has placed Americans in harm’s way and has jeopardized national security and people’s lives, it’s gonna blow up on you. People are not gonna say, oh, man, I wanna watch that and see if they screw up again. What they’re gonna do is they’re gonna turn to a source of news that they think is more reliable. In time of war, when you have a lot of things happening, people are interested in news. They’re interested in hard news, they’re not interested in somebody prancing around, we’ve got somebody there. That maybe part of it, but they want to figure out what’s going on. They want to know what’s going on on the ground and whoever wins that fight, as David was saying, who ever gets the facts right, they’re gonna win that ratings battle. Now when the war’s done, you can do, you know, “Joe millionaire,” or whatever, I mean, you can do that kind of stuff because it’s a different game.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Hold it one second, we’ve got to take another short break. We wanna milk that one a little bit more. And I’ll come back to you, David, in a moment.
graphics: Nightline Poll
commercial break
graphics: View Point: Patriotism, Journalism, & War
ANNOUNCER
This is ABC News “View Point: Patriotism, Journalism, and War.” Reporting live from the National Defense University, once again, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David Westin, we were talking about accountability and the question was asked earlier on, you know, so in the interests of getting a sexy story on the air somebody gets it wrong, how much chances do we get to get it wrong before you say, try some other place?
DAVID WESTIN
Well, that was the point I wanted to make. I certainly agree with General Joulwan, that we need to be accountability, as the military needs to be accountable. But this is the flip side of the Lieutenant Commander’s point earlier, where she asked the question about the competition. Because that very competition means that every time we go on the air, we are painfully conscious, particularly as Tony says, at a time when we’re at war, that we need to get it right. Because in some ways, what’s happened in America is amazing democratization of the media. People get to vote constantly all night long and all day long with their remote controls about what they want to watch. And at a time of the war, they’re gonna go to the places that they feel are offering them something substantively and that is right, fundamentally. So, I think, actually, there’s very healthy and very rigorous accountability for the media right now.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David Martin?
DAVID MARTIN
There’s another kind of accountability, too, which is, if I constantly go on the air with bum information or information that gives away legitimate secrets, nobody’s gonna talk to me. They’re going to shut me down and then I’m going to be nowhere.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Kate?
KATE ADIE
Well, I think no journalist wants to be in a position of putting out the wrong information. But what if you are with the military and you are not putting out the information that is embarrassing, the informations that the military would rather you didn’t mention? And the facts that, it is the sin of omission. There was a good example during the Gulf War where patriot missiles were used against incoming scuds. It was never mentioned that a very large percentage of these never hit their target.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me stop you on that one, Kate. All right, so here we have a situation where the Iraqis are targeting Israel in particular with scuds, and the word is out, the patriots are doing great. They’re knocking them down, you know, one after another. Would you really have wanted to convey, as a journalist, I’m putting it now in your lap, you got the story, they’re actually not working very well. They’re not doing the job.
KATE ADIE
Well, if I don’t put it out, somebody else will. It is wrong to believe just one nation is reporting. And this is one of the myths that knocks around these days. And with global communication, the idea that one nation is in charge of the world’s media is just, does not hold water. You have got other people, they will be putting out things and to say that you can discount everybody else’s journalism is neither practical nor realistic these days.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) No, but the fact of the matter is, there are also a lot of people putting crap out right now, I don’t feel the obligation to match them on it point for point. What I’m asking you, with regard to the scud missiles is, here is an instance where one can say that the information that you would be conveying to the Iraqis might cause a great many casualties.
KATE ADIE
No journalist, and this is, everybody has it as a given, can possibly be responsible for causing or in any way allowing death or injury to occur knowingly because of what they have said. Except of course to the enemy. And therefore we are not being entirely humane people.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Well, war is, war is not a humane exercise, I mean, let’s set that aside immediately.
KATE ADIE
The real problem in all of this is whether it’s a full all-out war with the whole of your nation on side, totally committed. If there are questions to be asked about the actual intent of the war, the reason why you’ve gone to it, whether you think it is fully justified and a just war, if there are those questions, there are going to be major questions raised, I think they have to be raised by the journalists.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Kate has raised an interesting question, Admiral, and let me pose it to you because you have to deal with it. You’re not just getting requests from American journalists who want to be embedded, you’re getting requests from journalists from how many different nations?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I’m sure it’s dozen scores. And indeed, on the first night of the strikes into Afghanistan, there were 12 international outlets among the 26 news outlets we had on the carriers and the ships at sea.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Well, let me take an example and let me say at the outset, I’m not going to criticize al-Jazeera, it is the best broadcasting that has come out of the Middle East ever. It may not be as friendly to some of our interests, or the interests of our allies as we’d like it to be, but nothing quite like it has ever come out of the Middle East. Al-Jazeera comes to you, as I’m sure they have, and they say, we want to be embedded, are you gonna let them?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
You know, we’ve actually had this debate, because frankly, while there is somebody of anecdotal information that al-Jazeera has, we haven’t done a very good job, frankly, of studying the product. And as long as, you know, our basic philosophy in the US military, and I think I speak for all the services in this regard is, we crave press coverage, day in and day out. And frankly, there’s fewer embarrassing stories out there with the all-volunteer force today than there was 20 years ago. You get out to the, front lines, you get outside Washington, you got some pretty eye-watering kids out there doing a great job. Getting people out there among those troops is great for their morale, it’s good for public support. And by and large, we want it. And that includes al-Jazeera because, frankly, coalition support, international support, is important as well. But it is really difficult to ask a Commander to take an organization, if in fact you can demonstrate that they have not been responsible and balanced in the way they’ve presented the stories. That doesn’t mean they’re, lap dogs, that means that they’ve been responsible and balanced. And we don’t have a good system in the US military for judging international media. We know the BBC, it’s a got a terrific reputation, never a problem with putting BBC out there. Al-Jazeera presents a challenge and we’re trying to gather some data. Right now we’re gonna put them out there.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Admiral Boomer, you were in a position of command during Desert Storm. If al-Jazeera had existed back then, would you have wanted an al-Jazeera team with you?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
I’m not sure. Because what, really happened on the ground was that I took with me people that I trusted and knew. And I invited people to come with us that I trusted and knew because I was gonna open it all up to them. And I really expected them to exercise some accountability and they did. You see, I’d take the David Martins of the world anywhere, any time. And show them practically anything. But I’ve got a problem with someone that I, don’t know, particularly if I’m worried about them potentially endangering some of our troops.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) We, I mean, I began this broadcast by asking you whether you were aware of a single instance in all your years in the military of a report by an American reporter jeopardizing American troops. And you gave me a very succinct and honest answer, no, you said. So, why is that such a grave concern? How many years were you in the marines?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
We were talking about American reporters and I’d throw in the BBC as well because there’s a certain affinity there.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) I won’t stretch your tolerance by asking about the French or Germans.
GEN WALTER BOOMER
No, please don’t, please don’t stretch me. My experience is with American reporters. And I said, not once, and that was true. But I would have to think very, very carefully about reporters from other countries that didn’t know. It would be an issue.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me just, before we go on to another question, we’re gonna come to you in a moment, give you an example, a recent example of where having critical reporters on a story can be helpful. You remember when the, Israelis moved into the West Bank and there were the stories of the massacre, the alleged massacre. The Israelis, of course, denied it. The Palestinians, I’m talking about Janine here, the Palestinians claimed there had been a massacre. The Israeli denials didn’t account for much, the Palestinian charges were taken at face value by a lot of reporters. And it was only when reporters went in, the same ones who had previously been critical of the Israelis, and said, you know something, we’ve dug into this for the last two weeks, we can’t find any evidence of a massacre. My point to you, gentlemen and then I’ll ask my colleagues to pick up on it, is, the fact that we are known as being critical, the fact that we may not always give you the kind of spin on a story that you want to get, I would argue, is in the long run going to be tremendously helpful to you.
GEN WALTER BOOMER
I wouldn’t disagree with that. I would not disagree with that.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
The main issue for us, as I said, besides thinking that you’re not gonna find nearly as much bad as you think, an independent witness to history in military operations is a critical element of credibility. If we’d had a journalist in some of these instances in Afghanistan where it was, who shot first, when it was a wedding party and mistaken identity, if there had been a journalist taking the fire first with our troops, there wouldn’t have been a question. As opposed to us coming back retroactively and reporting, he said, she said.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Go ahead, Kate, I’m sorry.
KATE ADIE
You’re assuming that there is an independence of a journalist who goes with the military. A deal has been done. The fact that you are with the military means a compromise has been reached. That is a fact of life for a journalist. You are not a totally independent, completely objective journalist. You have thrown in your lot with the military. You may be wearing the uniform. And you will have agreed, either formally or informally, that there are parameters, there are ground rules, there are some things off limits. I have never known an instance where journalists formally with a military unit have had anything other than that. So, you are not the independent voice. And after the Gulf War, in the early ’90s, I remember endless criticisms of journalists who went with the military, both the US and the UK pool as lapdogs, as poodles who swallowed everything, who’d been censored and who did not deliver, “the full truth.” So, I think we’re talking slightly mythically about independent journalists with the military. They are seen by large numbers of people as trotting behind the military.
GEN WALTER BOOMER CONSULTANT
That sounds like your problem, not ours.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David?
DAVID WESTIN
As much affinity as we all feel, and I certainly do, with our friends in Great Britain and the BBC, I couldn’t disagree more, I don’t think, with Kate. And it goes back, to some extent, to the question that the Captain asked earlier. What we do as professional journalists is do our best to set aside whatever personal views or biases or preferences we might have to try to go out and get the information we think the American people need and want, and make sure it’s right and report it. And that is without regard to what we might personally think, good, bad, or indifferent, about the policies of the United States government or anything else. We, all the time as journalists, have a relationship with sources, quite apart from the military, quite apart from the Army, quite apart from war, in which there are compromises made. In a sense, you go and meet with them a certain way, sometimes there are ground rules and things like that. We do that all of the time. That doesn’t mean that we become biased witnesses if we’re doing our job. Now, sometimes we don’t do our job well enough, absolutely right. But as professional journalists, that’s what we do, we set aside all that to try to get to the truth and present it to the American people so that they can make up their minds what is right, wrong, or indifferent. So, I don’t see the notion of embedding with the military, at all as compromising what we report.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Tony, you’re, make it relatively brief, if you will.
TONY SNOW
Well, once again, I’ll go back to the Ernie Pyle example which is, good reporters are gonna write or report what they see and sometimes they’re gonna get in trouble. That’s the way it works. Yes, there’s a deal struck. You are within, you are within a military unit, obviously in some ways they’re gonna be protecting your life. But on the other hand, you have no obligation to report something that’s not true. And I think reporters are pretty good sticklers about that, for the most part.
KATE ADIE
I keep coming back to this idea, it’s not the idea that you get it wrong or you actually tell lies. It is the massive sins of omission. What you fail to tell people about what is going on. The silence, the silence, the complicity.
TONY SNOW
In order to make the judgment, . . .
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Tell you what, hold on to the thought, Tony, we’ll come back to it. Obviously we haven’t finished this one yet. We’ll be back in a moment.
graphics: Patriotism, Journalism, & War
ANNOUNCER
“Patriotism, Journalism, and War,” and ABC News “View Point”, brought to you by . . .
commercial break
graphics: ABC NEWS: View Point
BOB PEARSON, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE PHOTOGRAPHER
I think the Vietnam War was probably the last time you would ever see total access to war coverage. In a lot of ways, that was a good thing, but I think the military probably saw that as a, lot of bad publicity for them. And after that, you just did not see any type of close-in coverage made available on a day-to-day basis ever again. And I’m sure you never will again. It’s just too controlled. And while the DOD does not really call it censorship and I guess in the strictest sense of the words, it’s not censorship, the access they give you really does act as a form of censorship.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR
We war reporters would never in conscience reveal things that were supposed to be war secrets or military security, et cetera. But what happened during the Gulf War was that the news management was because of image more than because of military security. And I think that had a very, very, very negative and profoundly bad effect on the coverage and on the subsequent war coverage and on the subsequent deals that the Pentagon has tried to snare us into.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Those voices of correspondents come from a recent exhibition called “War Stories at the Museum.” Our thanks to our friends as the Museum. Very quickly, I want to finish off on the co-opting part of this discussion. Tony, you wanted to add something and I know Kate did.
TONY SNOW
Just a couple of quick points. What Kate was saying is, somehow people will commit sins of omission. A lot of times, requires almost a God’s eye view to figure out what constitutes a sin of omission that may in fact be journalistic dereliction. Sorry I’m rhyming so much. Now, the other thing is that in the Gulf War, we had a lot of people who tried to cover it from a hotel suite. And, you know Arno, an old boss of mine, went out, and he made the point that too few reporters back then got their hair cut, got into shape, hitched a ride with a tank and developed trust with the military and actually got into the action. And so we had the scene where people were doing these briefings and, at Riyadh and saying, now, where are we going to head tomorrow and “Saturday Night Live” is doing skits about it. The failings in the Gulf War were those of reporters who really didn’t know how to get in with troops and didn’t get to the front. And so, there was a certain, I think, lack of experience that plagued American reporters. It appears that it’s gonna be a little different this time around.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Although, for example, David, your CBS colleague Bob Simon ended up in an Iraqi prison because he didn’t allow himself to be led around by the nose.
DAVID MARTIN
That’s the danger of breaking away. 40 days in an Iraqi jail.
KATE ADIE
It’s both a danger but it is considered that it’s another part of journalism as valid as going with the military., It has to happen. It may be dangerous, you will hear the military say, but we can protect you, that’s why you should stay with us. So you say, well, actually there may be another angle, there may be another way of reporting this war. The military always say that. They’re terribly nice. I mean, they’re kind and they genuinely do. I’ve been hoisted into the back of an armored vehicle more than once, and saved my life. I have no argument and I am grateful to my own military for doing that. But, there’s another way of seeing a war and it doesn’t have to be just with the military. So, do you consider that there are going to be people on the battlefield who are not with you?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
Sure.
KATE ADIE
Do you mind?
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
Not at all. That’s this adversarial relationship I’m talking about.
KATE ADIE
What if they get in the way?
GEN WALTER BOOMER CORPS IN DESERT STORM
They may report that we’ve had a very successful, in our mind, engagement. We’ve taken, the mission is accomplished and what the lead story is, two Americans were killed. That is your prerogative to report it that way. We may not like it, but to me, that is the environment we’re in. That doesn’t mean we want to brainwash you or not have you report the story, but we have to accept that, that that may be their headline, the report that you make.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me just jump to the gentleman in the back. Go ahead, sir.
SPECIALIST RYAN WOOD, AUDIENCE MEMBER
Specialist Ryan Wood with the Defense Information School. My question is more to the media. With today’s modern technology, how do we retain our objectivity when, by the very act of reporting, we are affecting the events of the story?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Well, let me, before one of my colleagues here tries to answer that, let me ask you, when you thought it was ever different? I mean it’s faster now, no question about it. We can do it, more easily, more quickly, but that’s always been the case, hasn’t it?
SPECIALIST RYAN WOOD
Coming through the military side of being trained in journalism, right now I’m in that school, we see chances where, in Vietnam, like you said, you had two and a half days in between getting something from the front to the people at home. Now you’ve got two and a half seconds of getting something from the front to the people at home. If someone on the other side happens to be watching saying, oh, look, here comes a column of tanks, I recognize that street and that street sign, I’m gonna remove my people from that area or I’m going to move them for a counterattack, suddenly the reporter becomes part of the action by the very virtue of reporting on the story.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) I think it’s a legitimate question, but if I may, let me direct it over here, because I think, if I was listening carefully, Admiral, you told me that if we are in those kinds of circumstances in active combat, we’re not gonna be able to use that equipment live.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
This goes to Kate’s point, if you are with us, we are not gonna let you transmit that. And if you are not with us and we think it’s gonna put us at risk, you may not be with anyone for long.
KATE ADIE
Would you actually take out reporters? Would you actually do something about them if they were perhaps going to do that?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I suppose we’d try persuasion first.
KATE ADIE
Describe persuasion. How far would you take persuasion?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I mean, I think that a Commander, and I’m not, these guys have got more time in a latrine on the battlefield than I do, so, but I think that a Commander has the legitimate right to remove, from the battlefield, things that will provide real time intelligence to the enemy. Now, this not gonna be, I’ve been out there for all my career arguing against having base guards seize cameras and tapes. I mean, we don’t like to do this sort of thing, but the stakes are a little different when you are in the circumstances our specialist described here. I don’t think that’s gonna happen a lot, but if it happens, for these Commanders that are out there, whose priorities are protecting their people and accomplishing the mission, whether or not you broadcast that real time or whether you put that in the can and transmit that compelling video 20 minutes later is not a reason to put the mission at risk.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) And let me lose my lifetime fraternity ring in journalism by suggesting, what the hell is wrong with that, Kate? If you are a Commander and you know that a piece of video that is being sent all around the world, that can be picked up as easily in Baghdad or in Kuwait City or in Doha as it can in Washington or in Los Angeles, if you know that that piece of video being broadcast in real time is jeopardizing the lives of your men, yours, you’re gonna tell me you’re not gonna confiscate that until that particular danger is over?
KATE ADIE
They may not be just Americans on that battlefield reporting, other journalists. So you treat them as the enemy?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) As an annoyance, as a nuisance, as a danger to my troops.
KATE ADIE
I’ve had that in one or two places and, not dealing with Americans, but with other nations. And it’s why so many journalists are murdered these days on battlefields, because Generals wish to own battlefields. They wish to take over entire areas, declare them military zones where they only rule. Fine, if it’s a just war and it’s your people but we are actually looking further afield these days.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) I don’t think I’ve heard quite that Draconian suggestion coming from this side of the, . . .
KATE ADIE
Yeah, but Generals were looking pretty determined while you were saying that. I’m a realist about this, I have seen journalists killed by the military.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) By the American military?
KATE ADIE
Not by the American military but by other military.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David?
DAVID WESTIN
There’s a very important point here that the Admiral referred to. There is a profound difference between whether we get the information and when the information is disclosed. The fact is, as I said earlier, it’s terribly important the American people know what is going on to a degree that they need to make decisions about what we should be doing. Often, they don’t need to know it this moment. They can wait a few hours or even a day or two. And this comes up, I mean, this is not that rare. I mean, a year or so ago, and I think David Martin was involved in this as well, in the early stages of the Afghanistan conflict, we had a report from inside the Pentagon that the United States had special forces who were on a raid into an airfield outside of Kandahar. And the military, the Pentagon said to us, please hold off on reporting it for a few hours because we’re concerned if that’s broadcast before those guys come back out, they could be put in danger. And we sat on it. And, it made neither of our evening broadcasts that evening, our newscasts. And afterwards, our Pentagon person was concerned that I would be upset because we didn’t get it. And somebody else actually got it and got it first. And I said, it’s not that important. I mean, I don’t want to jeopardize our people’s lives for a few hour’s time. Now, if the military comes to us and says, we never want you to report something, that’s a very different matter. That’s very, troubling. But if there’s an independent record from a journalist that’s there, that can be disclosed to the American people at some point, then I think, largely we’ve accomplished what we need to accomplish.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Why did we, ever get away from, I mean, I’m not saying this in a wistful sense, but why did we ever get away from the sort of formal censorship that existed in World War II? Or World War I, for that matter? Is it because we don’t declare wars any more, or at least our presidents don’t bother going to Congress any more? Is that why?
DAVID MARTIN
It’s a pain in the neck for everyone. The military has got to administer the darn thing and we’ve got to live with it. Nobody likes it.
TONY SNOW
We’ve also, take a look at the wars in which the United States has been involved in the last dozen or so years. They’ve been swift, they’ve been almost clinical. I mean, the big concern is whether anybody dies. And so, somehow I think we’re talking about a much different kind of situation than Vietnam or World War II. And here’s something that’s maybe worth considering is that, the assumption in a lot of quarters is, go to war in Iraq, it’s no big deal. You know, you do, the air first and then you bring everybody in, it’s clean, it’s fast. There are no guarantees of that. But there does seem to be a certain cockiness, maybe on the part of reporters and also the pundit class here in Washington, that somehow it’s just gonna be a kind of clean thing conducted at arm’s length.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) I mean, Kate forgive me, you’re, waging a valiant and slightly lonely battle here, but let me just, remind you of what your own government did, for example, during the many years of recent unpleasantness in Northern Ireland.
KATE ADIE
Absolutely.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) And, you know, I don’t have any recollection of British forces in Northern Ireland having any reluctance to stop coverage. And if they couldn’t stop it in Northern Ireland they slapped a “D notice” on it? Isn’t that what it’s called?
KATE ADIE
Yes. But there’s a deep reservoir, and maybe my discomfort comes from that, that the press were less than honorable, that we did not challenge a great number of abuses which occurred in the security forces. Things which, as citizens, and people upholding human rights, we should not have tolerated, that were done by the military in the government’s name. And there is a sense of considerable bitterness that this was allowed to gone on. And I think all journalists who’ve been in military situations have known later that there were things they should have challenged. And maybe I, we feel it a little more strongly because we were so close to it.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Terrific point. Let me, take another quick break and then we’ll be back with our panelists and our audience.
commercial break
graphics: View Point: Patriotism, Journalism, & War
PETER ARNETT, FORMER CNN CORRESPONDENT
I was at a American special forces camp in, north of Saigon. There had been an attack the previous night, 2-thirds of the Americans had been killed, seven or eight had been killed, there were only four left. They welcomed us there and they said, well, you can stay with us tonight, on the condition that you help defend the camp and we’re expecting an attack. So through the night, I was manning a machine gun at a mortar pit and was told, if the VC come up that ravine, your job is to make sure they don’t make it to the wire. It was the most uncomfortable frightening night I ever spent in my life. But I was ready to shoot that machine gun, if only to defend myself. But fortunately I didn’t have to do it.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Survival is a pretty strong instinct. David, I take you never had, never faced that particular problem?
DAVID MARTIN
No. Nothing like that.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) But, you know, I, think it illustrates, Kate, what you have been talking about here, too. You have been holding forth for us, and I’m grateful to you for doing that, a sort of idealized version of the fearless combat correspondent. Actually, I’m reminded of that wonderful World War I rhyme, one cannot hope to bribe or twist thank God the British journalist that seen what the man will do unbribed has no occasion to. We’re all human.
KATE ADIE
Yes.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Peter Arnett is one of the best war correspondents that ever was. He was certainly one of the best who was with us over there in Vietnam. And for Peter to acknowledge that, you know, on that particular occasion, sitting in special forces camp and if the Vietcong are about to overrun the camp and some guy hands you a machine gun and says, use it.
KATE ADIE
Survival. Absolutely understandable. I hold forth the ideal because I think you have to have the ideal, otherwise you might all just sign up with the military and go with them. Be paid by them to put this stuff out. You have to have the ideal. I am an absolute realist. What I would always argue is that if you go with the military, you make very public the deal you have done. You tell what the limits are. You don’t pretend you’re reporting the full stuff. I think there’s a great desire to just sort of suggest that if you are somewhere in that battle zone, there are guys with military uniform around you, you’re really telling it all. I think you have to be utterly honest. I was when I was in uniform in the Gulf, with 7th Armored Brigade. I said, I’m wearing uniform because I done a deal, this is it, I’m only telling you a certain amount. And I think you have to be absolutely practical in that sense. But you have to push it forward, have the other reporters who are not with the military, it may be horrendously risky and I think even more so these days, but you have to have those ideals. If you don’t, well, as I said, let’s just all sign up.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) General Boomer?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
Well, the deal is sort of a mystery to me because I never cut one with anybody, anyone that was accompanying us.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Oh, come on, it’s sort of, I mean, it’s sort of an implicit deal. Let’s face it. I think Kate has a point. If I am going to ask for the protection of your men, if I’m going to ride in your humvees or on your helicopters, to get to the location, if I’m expecting your guys to pull me out of trouble if I get into trouble, isn’t there a certain expectation that I’m, gonna give you the fairest possible shake that I can?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
That’s the expectation with the journalist from the, I mean, if you don’t have that expectation you’re gonna get a fair shake, you shouldn’t be bringing them.
GEN WALTER BOOMER
I think that’s all you want is a fair shake. But my, you know, my interpretation of what Kate was saying is that we can’t live with the facts. And I don’t think that’s true. We can live with the good and the bad.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I’ll tell you, Sir, the only thing that is, you can talk about implicit deals and maybe, maybe this journalist is gonna self-censor and say, I really don’t want to report negative things about the guys because they are my buddies and I want to make sure they come out in that mine field and get me. But that’s not part of what we have them sign up for. There are restrictions on, you’re gonna have, by nature of being with our forces, access to information that is sensitive and can’t be reported in real time. We’re going to tell what you that is and, you know, to prevent you from getting access to it would be to leave you behind, and you agree that you’re not gonna report that. It has nothing to do with not reporting, if you choose to, the malcontent in the ranks or the fact that the water is, you know, skanked or the chem-biosuits nobody’s got confidence in or they do, that’s all fair game.
KATE ADIE
I mean, winging goes on all the time in armies, you know, it’s a matter of morale as to how you handle that. But what do you do if see a soldier commit an illegal act?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
Report it.
KATE ADIE
Is that going to be allowed by you?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
Absolutely.
KATE ADIE
During a push forward or maybe a reverse, where it may affect what is going to happen?
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I mean, we’re getting pretty deep in theory here.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Go ahead, David.
DAVID WESTIN
On the specifics of the so-called deal, I actually just happened, a week ago, to be in Kuwait City and I went to camp Doha where the, men and women and the equipment’s coming in. And I met with a senior Army officer and he said the deal, as far as he’s concerned, with the embeds in the ground forces is very simple. Don’t give away my specific location. Don’t give away my plans and don’t get in the way. That’s all I ask. Other than that, it’s up to you, you can do anything you want. Those are the three, and I a agree entirely with Kate, as always, in television journalism it’s critical we disclose to our public what we are saying, what we’re not saying, if there is some understanding, and then they can decide whether they want to believe what we’re saying or not. I agree entirely. But this officer was very clear, that’s the deal and that’s it. That’s the full extent of it. Other than that, report everything you want.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me focus on something that I suspect our viewers at home have seen more than those of us who are facing out here. That’s your little flag. You’re wearing the little flag, David isn’t. David Martin isn’t. I’m not. Well, you’re a Brit but you’re not wearing, . . .
KATE ADIE
I would not wear the British one if I were not signed up with forces. It would be considered, it’s a very different attitude to patriotism that you people have, the Brits do not do it overtly.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) This is a, you know, this is a sensitive issue in this country. Tony, why do you wear it?
TONY SNOW
Tonight did it out of sheer perversity, ’cause I knew the topic would come up. But, there was an interesting debate early on in the Gulf War, I mean, after September 11th, about whether you should wear an American flag. I see no reason not to do it. Because the presumption that somehow you’re taking sides if you’re wearing the flag, I think, makes the mistake of equating the flag with the government or a political party. In our neighborhood, we buried a guy. And there were a number of other people very close by who were in the Pentagon. We had firemen who were working in there. It hit people close to home. And after September 11th, what a lot of Americans realized is what an extraordinary country we are. And I think it is something that is worth remembering, because it is at the core of who we are. It explains why we are a nation that is constantly agonizing over the moral propriety of what we do, where we go, why we do it. It’s one of the glories. It’s why we are constantly arguing about everything and anything, on this stage and elsewhere.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David Martin, you know it’s coming, so why aren’t you wearing the flag?
DAVID MARTIN
I wouldn’t wear it because it looks too much like part of a uniform. I mean, the Vice President wears one. And you just look a little too much like an Administration “suit” when you’re up there on television. If I wore one, I wouldn’t do anything differently. It’s strictly an appearance factor. The day we started bombing in Afghanistan, October 7th, when I left home that morning, I put an American flag up outside my house. Had no problem with that, a personal show of patriotism. But I wouldn’t wear one in public appearing on television.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Gentlemen, actually I, . . .
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
Yes, I’m wearing one.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) You’ve got one. Well, hell, you’re an ex, four star, right? I mean, . . .
GENERAL GEORGE JOULWAN
Well, I think there’s much more than that. I think it’s a symbol of unity within our country. I don’t think it applies, you belong to one political group or another. I think it’s very much what unites all Americans. We have certain symbols that I think represent that. I don’t think it’s in a negative or, something that you side with one group. I think it’s very proud statement, on my part at least, that I represent not just military but Americans. And Americans are something very special, if I may say that.
TONY SNOW
Ted let just me add on, David’s argument. I know it’s, a lot of people are concerned about this being an Administration suit. Again, I think it’s a big mistake to say, this represents an Administration, it represents a government. Because it doesn’t, that’s not what I thought when I started wearing the flag.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) No, and I certainly don’t, I don’t question anybody’s individual motive. I’ll tell you the one thing that troubles me about it, is that because you wear it on the air, David and David and I and my colleagues who choose not to wear it on the air, are in some eyes then regarded as less patriotic. I understand, not your problem.
TONY SNOW
I look on that as, for anybody to draw assumptions about your patriotism about whether you wear a lapel pin or not, to me is nuts.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) It’s surprising how people make their judgments. But go ahead.
DAVID WESTIN
I mean, I was involved in this not only because I do not have one on tonight. I mean, as David said, I fly one on the Fourth of July, I put one on the antenna of my car and drive through the main street of my hometown, parade and things like that. And I think the flag represents everything General Joulwan says. But after 9/11, the question came up and we, as a matter of policy at ABC News, tell our people on the air, you shall not wear an American flag or any other symbol on the air.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Because?
DAVID WESTIN
Because, as I said before, I think, and this is where I may differ just slightly with what Kate said earlier, I think our patriotic duty as journalists in the United States is to try to be independent and objective and present the facts to the American people and let them decide all the important things. Now, I respect Tony’s right to wear one. I respect any other news organization taking a different tack, but for me, part of the symbolism of the fact that what we’re doing in our constitutional democracy, what we’re doing to right to help “the cause of the country overall” is to be objective and give just the straight facts to the American people and let them decide what they want to do about it.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Tell you what guys, Tony, we’re down to our last five minutes, and I want to see if we can’t get, oh, wait a second, we got to take a break. We’ll be right back and I promise we’ll come to you.
commercial break
graphics: ABC News: View Point
ANNOUNCER
ABC News “View Point.” Once again, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) And let’s go right to a question, the Marine in the back.
FIRST LIEUTENANT KNOT, AUDIENCE MEMBER
Good evening my name is First Lieutenant Knot. It seems to me that one of the central issues, . . .
TED KOPPEL
(OC) You can pull that thing up, you know. You don’t have to bend over like that.
FIRST LIEUTENANT KNOT
Thank you. Seems to me that one of the central issues in this panel is the potential, from the military perspective, is a, potential danger the media poses to military units operating in a combat environment. Now, we certainly would not expect the military to react well to the media putting any of its combat units in danger. How does media react to the potential of putting its own reporters in danger?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) David, actually we were talking about this in my office this afternoon because it must weigh heavily on your shoulders.
DAVID WESTIN
Yeah, Kate and I were talking about this at the break. And I think this is a place where, actually, it’s a bit harder for those of us sitting back in nice comfortable offices in New York than some of the people in the field. Because our people in the field are very eager and brave and a number of them are experienced, thank goodness, and have training and we’ve put through a lot of training with the military. But for me, one of the things I say, I’m not sure our people always believe it is, as serious as I take our mission, as I’ve tried to say, and as important as I think what we do, it’s not worth losing your life over. I don’t want any journalists putting themselves in a position where they’re going to lose their life. Now, let’s be serious, if you’re over there in a combat situation, there’s risks. And there’s more risks, probably, than taking the west side highway somewhere in New York City. But we try to give our people the counseling and the protection and the advice that they need and try to supervise them. But I’m very, very concerned about the safety. As Kate said, I think that this conflict, if there is a conflict, may be much more dangerous for journalists, as well as perhaps the military, than others we’ve seen. Particularly if there is actually a move toward Baghdad to actually take over the regime and we have the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, of chemical or biological. I think that this could be very, very dangerous for our people and it weighs heavily on me.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let’s go to the lady in the back.
KARA CHEETHAM, AUDIENCE MEMBER
Kara Cheetham(PH) from Richmond, Virginia. My question is directed towards our military leadership. Soon after 9/11, the Pentagon explored the idea of creating an office whose mission was psychological operations or strategic deception. How do you feel about the military deliberately feeding misinformation to reporters, knowing that they’ll get the story wrong, but also knowing that perhaps the enemy will also get a hold of that story?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) And if we were gonna do it, why would you believe whatever answer they’re going to go give you? Go ahead, Admiral.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
I was involved in that, and I can tell you, leaving aside what the stated mission of the office of strategic influence or strategical situational integrity, whatever it was going to be, the one a thing that was not acceptable to Secretary Rumsfeld to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for PA, public affairs, was deception of journalists, the American public, et cetera. Will we let journalists make mistake if it’s to a tactical advantage, let them? We’ve done so. Is there a arc of military deception designed to fool the enemy about our intentions? Yes. Do media sometimes pick up on that and report it, as they did in the Gulf War when we conducted amphibious exercises to demonstrate our capability to do an amphibious assault on Kuwait, even though we never intended to do one? Yes. Did that hold Iraqi divisions in Kuwait? Yes. But there was never going to happen under this Secretary of Defense, or I think any of us that have done public affairs, where we will deliberately lie to US or international press in order to influence the enemy. Will we lie to the adversary? You bet.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) And let me suggest, there’s also a certain amount of self- interest involved in that, as I’m sure the Admiral will agree. Because, if you lie us to for those reasons, there will come a time when they want us to believe them and we won’t.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
Well, it’s in a sense, why we don’t, why we really don’t want to do censorship, besides the bureaucratic difficulty. The credibility of not having copy or broadcast stuff, having to say, “cleared by American censors” or “cleared by the US military,” that’s what we’re seeking, we want that credibility. I think we do, without mortgaging too much of your independence, but that’s the key for us. We have nothing more valuable in maintaining the support of the American public than the credibility of the men and women in uniform.
KATE ADIE
Is there not, very much at the heart of all of this, that between journalists and the military, those who’ve actually been in combat and know what it’s about and the awfulness of war, do have an understanding about these things. The people who are one step removed always, and where these suggestions come from, are the politicians.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Let me just give you an example from something that’s not too distant in our memories. When US forces landed on the beach in Somalia and much was made, the media was mocked for being there as they came aboard because there we were with our lights and our cameras, you know who put us there? The UN command, for crying out loud. They’re the one who showed us where these guys were gonna land. You know, the media, God knows we do enough stupid things in our lives, but we don’t try to make a habit of it. And particularly not when lives are at stake. But go ahead.
JENNIFER CHESICK, AUDIENCE MEMBER
I’m Jennifer Chesick (PH) with the, School of Journalism. And my question is directed towards the military. Since, you know, the media may not always be working with the military or the government’s agenda, how much obligation do you feel to actually protect the media when they’re out there in the battlefield with you?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
I’m always a little worried about them.
REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN PIETROPAOLI
You’ll sleep soundly tonight, huh?
TED KOPPEL
(OC) Try, to contain your emotions there, General Boomer, will you?
GEN WALTER BOOMER
But you know, truthfully, these folks are professionals, the vast majority. They, know what they are in for. They recognize the danger. They’re not stupid. So you really don’t need to worry about them too much, quite frankly. They tend to take care of themselves. So it’s never been a real, issue. I had a, woman with me in Vietnam that I thought, as I think back on it, I thought she was just incredibly dumb the way she exposed herself, and not personally, but to the enemy. And finally, I just gave up, you know. And I can’t remember her name, but I said, you know, if you want to get killed, go ahead, I’m not going to worry about you anymore, so. But generally speaking, from my perspective, it’s never been a problem.
TED KOPPEL
(OC) General Boomer that will have to be the last word. I’m afraid we are out time. I propose to you at home tonight that you ought to be quite encouraged by what you’ve seen here this evening, a unified military and bunch of journalists who can’t agree on much of anything. I suggest that both are healthy for American freedoms. And I thank all of our guests here this evening and those of us who have welcomed us here. Thanks to you to all of you. I’m Ted Koppel in Washington, for all of us here at ABC News, good night.
ANNOUNCER
From the National Defense University, this has been an ABC News “View Point: Patriotism, Journalism, and War.”
Document nlne000020030118dz1h00001