|
Media Matters
April 4, 2003
Should Journalists Speak Out in Times of War?
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Some NPR employees have asked whether they might, as citizens and NPR employees, demonstrate against the war or in support of the troops. Ombuds are being asked the same question by their journalists. The answer for all media organizations is universally "no."
Specifically, one NPR News employee was asked by her mother to go with her to a peace vigil at her church.
As inoffensive as that might sound, public radio ethics guides are quite specific:
While we should convey to our listeners that we have a stake in the well being of our communities, political activism and advocacy should be avoided. Where should the line be drawn? (NPR's guide entitled) Sound Reporting lists the following activities as out of bounds for journalists: running for elective office, working in electoral campaigns, writing speeches for candidates, lobbying for candidates or ballot measures, and publicly endorsing candidates. Common sense also dictates that reporters avoid public expression of their political views, such as displaying posters and wearing campaign buttons, marching in rallies or writing partisan op-ed pieces.
Independence and Integrity: A Guidebook for Public Radio Journalism
Other news organizations are equally direct and in many cases, a lot tougher.
We avoid active involvement in any partisan causes -- politics, community affairs, social action, demonstrations -- that could compromise or seem to compromise our ability to report and edit
fairly. Relatives cannot fairly be made subject to Post rules, but it should be recognized that their employment or their involvement in causes can at least appear to compromise our
integrity. The business and professional ties of traditional
family members or other members of your household must be
disclosed to department heads.
- The Washington Post
Employees may not engage in activities likely to bring the Corporation into disrepute… Employees may not take a stand on public controversies if, by doing so, the Corporation's integrity would be compromised…In order to maintain their own credibility and that of the CBC, on-air personnel, as well as those who edit, produce or manage CBC programs, must avoid publicly identifying themselves in any way with partisan statements or actions on controversial matters.
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Journalists are expected to avoid any situations…(that) would present a conflict of interests with their work and assignments, and if there is a potential for conflict are expected to discuss it with their editors first. (Don't surprise the editors with community activism, and if you engage in activism, you can expect some limitations in the future assignments.). There is no prohibition against activism per se, and no limits on free speech, but journalists who become activist would be limited in their assignments to avoid an appearance of conflict. In some case the limitations could be very restrictive.
- The Sacramento Bee
Peter Arnett's Dilemma
It may seem a stretch to go from attending a peace vigil with your mother to the Peter Arnett case. But the consequences have some similarities.
It is precisely that expression of personal opinion that landed veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett into so much trouble. Arnett was in Iraq on behalf of NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic. On air, he was described as a "reporter/analyst." But it may be conceit to assume that a journalist can move smoothly from one role to the other without appearing to contradict oneself as a journalist.
Arnett gave an interview on March 30 to Iraqi television in which he praised the Iraqi government ("I'd like to say that in the 12 years I've been coming here, I've met unfailing courtesy and cooperation..."). Arnett went on to say (among other things) that "there is a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war... I think American policy and strategy is weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people... Clearly the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces..."
Arnett's quotes weren't anything that many Americans haven't already said. But Arnett isn't just any citizen exercising his First Amendment rights.
Arnett's bosses at MSNBC and NBC spoke with their reporter. Then they made him their ex-reporter.
'Unbelievable!'
"When you give an interview to a guy in an army uniform who works for a dictator whose government we're at war with, it raises some real questions about your judgment", said Eric Sorenson, the president of MSNBC. "It's just unbelievable."
Arnett apologized, then moved directly to his new job -- reporting for the London Daily Mirror.
Arnett is a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter and longtime war correspondent. So there has been much speculation as to what could have possibly motivated him to do this.
While "hubris" and "pundit-fever" were two of the frequent speculations, there may be another
interpretation -- and one that may be even more unsettling.
In 1990, New Yorker writer Janet Malcolm published a book entitled The Journalist and the Murderer. In it, she tracked the journalistic and litigious relationship between Jeffrey MacDonald, a convicted murderer, and Joe McGinnis, a noted journalist.
MacDonald was charged and convicted of murder. He asked McGinnis to write his story. The book entitled Blind Faith eventually appeared. It portrayed MacDonald unsympathetically. So MacDonald sued McGinnis, accusing him of deception and "journalistic distortion," among other things.
'The Moral Ambiguity of Journalism'
Malcolm wrote about what she calls the "moral ambiguity of journalism" -- specifically about the curious moral relationship between these two men and the questions about the nature of journalism. Malcolm's thesis is that many -- if not all -- journalistic relationships between reporter and subject are based on an inherent dishonesty. Malcolm says that dishonesty comes from the unstated idea that a journalist has taken the side of the subject and that he or she actually believes the person being interviewed. That dishonesty is driven by the powerful desire on the part of the journalist to get this story -- by any means necessary even if it means lying:
Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.
In my experience most journalism doesn't happen like that. But there are times when it does.
Arnett is not a naive man, from what I know about him. He may have been saying what he truly believes. Or, as an experienced reporter, he may have tried a kind of clever ruse on the Saddam regime -- ingratiating himself in order to curry some future journalistic favor. Sometimes it works, but in this case, it didn't. Whatever really happened to Arnett and what motivated him to do it, are yet to be fully explained.
For now, the lessons for the rest of us are to keep our own counsel and simply report what we know. The separation between analyst and reporter is more important than ever, just as it is to keep opinions apart from reporting. Journalism seems to serve the listeners best that way.
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3246 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
