Not the finest hour for American journalism

IN Media Practice | 05/04/2003
When the time came for American editors, reporters, studio anchors and producers to stand up to the establishment, their feet turned to clay.

                            Reprinted from Media File in Himal

 

 

Kanak Mani Dixit in Kathmandu

 

 

 

Where are the war correspondents?

A casualty of the war on
Iraq by George W Bush has been the
image of American press as the exemplar of journalistic
accomplishment. For decades, journalists worldwide, and the
developing world in particular, looked up to their American
colleagues with awe (that word!) and respect, as models of probity,
independence, courage and investigative zeal. Watergate and all
that. 

Well, it turns out that they just had not been tested. When the time
came for American editors, reporters, studio anchors and producers
to stand up to the establishment and the mass expectation of the
public, their feet turned to clay. 

The 30 March New York Times had this headline in a dateline
Washington DC piece by David E Sanger: "As a Quick Victory
Grows Less Likely, Doubts Are Quietly Voiced".  When American
politicians and journalists raise doubts `quietly`, there is little that
distinguishes them from their peers all over the world, in countries
underdeveloped or overdeveloped. 

It started after
11 September 2001, when television, press and radio
began to ply the American public with what it wanted to hear about
the rest of the world. This was then force-fed to the rest of the world.
In the run-up to Gulf War II, the American press did not question or
caution, at one with the weak-kneed congressmen and senators
who gave George W Bush a carte blanche to dare and misrepresent
his way to war. 

Perhaps the worst hour of Western journalism is when it `embeds`
its operatives - hardly reporters - within army columns to report on
heroics on the desert road to
Baghdad. Whatever happened to war
correspondents, who were still around till
Vietnam

With its power and reach, Western satellite media is dehumanising
the Arab man, woman and child, which is why we do not feel stabs
of pain as heavy ordnance, cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs
explode in inhabited cities. The news reports shirk from presenting
the direct connection between the blazing night sky on television
and the death and maiming of civilians on the ground. The channels
prefer not to show images of dead, bleeding, destitute people to
save the sentiments of viewers at home. 

An Iraqi missile harmlessly hitting a Kuwaiti shopping centre gets
more airtime than dozens of dead in a
Baghdad market. Armoured
columns rushing through empty desert are hailed for the speed with
which they rush through empty desert. American public relations
generals talk down to reporters so submissive that it reminds us of
the `government press` in tin-pot dictatorships. 

It seems time to cast aside the American media role models. They
are acting no different than journalists in `imperfect` democracies
when they cower before the vehement, whipped-up beliefs of the
public. Fear of being labelled unpatriotic forces them to toe the line,
the same way that happens in, say,
Nepal, India, Pakistan, Kenya,
Thailand, or.Iraq. 

As the expose of American media continues to unfold on television
screens and downloaded articles, however, no one need feel any
sense of superiority over the reporters so thankfully picking up
morsels thrown their way by Centcom. For it is a tragedy when the
tutor is found wanting. 

The times call for humility, for everywhere journalists have their
insecurities and inadequacies. As we watch television reporters and
anchors make a mockery of their craft and careers, the only
respectable response is to search within ourselves, and our
motives, every time we file a story. With the Western ideal so
blatantly exposed, we must now live in a world where we make 

our own standards and live up to them. 
 
Kanak Mani Dixit is editor of Himal. Contact: kanakd@himalmag.com 

TAGS
finest
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More