Coverage of the 2002 Murrow Award Ceremony with Christiane Amanpour

Thank you very much. And thank you for being here this evening. I'm Alex Tan from the School of Communication at Washington State University. Welcome to this special Murrow Award ceremony. The Edward R. Murrow School of Communication is indeed pleased to bring you tonight's program featuring one of today's brightest stars in journalism and broadcasting. Before I introduce the order of events, we would like to show you as a short videotape which records today's groundbreaking for a new building for tomorrow's School of Communication, surely a milestone for our school, the College of Liberal Arts and Washington State University. With this ceremony, the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication on the campus of Washington State University is charting a path to the future. Well this, this new building will mean that we can do a better job of teaching our students

to be ready for the new age in communications, and also for the faculty. They will be able to do a better job of doing research to actually help solve some of the pressing social problems in the state and the country. The existing Murrow addition was dedicated nearly 30 years ago. Once again, the school is busting at the seams, with about 700 communications majors and 750 pre majors. Five Four Three The Murrow school is one of the country's top-rated programs, and the only comprehensive communications school in Washington. About 30 percent of those who apply are turned away. The red brick and glass addition will add more than 24,000 square feet of research and teaching labs, a digital news studio, faculty offices, and a 172-seat classroom auditorium. The new computer labs will be some of the most advanced research facilities in the world, allowing faculty and students to conduct nationwide surveys, measure psycho-physiological responses to communication,

and evaluate online research. Join us for the dedication of the addition to the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication in the Fall of 2003. In 1958 Edward R. Murrow told radio and television executives and news directors, television, this most powerful instrument of communication, should be used not only for ratings and profits, but also to fight the good fight against ignorance, intolerance, and indifference. Our featured speaker and awardee tonight certainly lives up to this legacy and tradition from Mr. Murrow. Here is the order of events for tonight's program. Barbara Couture, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, will speak on the Murrow tradition. She will be followed

by a video tribute to Edward R. Murrow specially produced for the Murrow School by a school alumni and featuring some of broadcast journalism's most respected professionals. After the video, Robert Bates, Washington State University's new provost, was scheduled to speak about the Edward R. Murrow Award. Dr. Bates has been called out of town on emergency business. He has asked me to read his remarks. We will then show you a video tribute to tonight's honoree produced by CNN. After the video, our honoree will be introduced by our president, Dr. V. Lane Rawlins, who will give her the Murrow Award for distinguished achievement in broadcasting. We will then hear from our awardee, speaking on "killing the messenger", to be followed by a question-and-answer period. Thank you very much and I hope you enjoy the evening. My pleasure now to introduce Barbara Couture, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Good evening. It's very fitting that the Murrow awards and the Murrow

symposia at Washington State University honor this most illustrious of broadcast journalists. In doing so, we hope to keep the Murrow tradition alive. Even today, Mr. Murrow is credited with making broadcast journalism respectable, courageous, and sincere, and with establishing standards to which broadcasting professionals still aspire. Mr. Murrow not only established the highest professional standards, he was also an advocate for what television could do. In a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in Chicago on October 15, 1958, he said, "This instrument can teach. It can illuminate. Yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it's merely wires and lights in a box."

The Murrow tradition of great broadcast journalism indeed lives on, and it bears even more significance today in the environment of new technologies' big media. We now present to you a videotape in which several broadcast journalists who are prominent and known to you today pay tribute to the Murrow tradition. Please watch. Thank you. Murrow was an inspiration, not just to his generation, but to future generations of journalists to come. And for those of us who were lucky enough to work with him, he was our mentor. His devotion to the truth and his fearlessness in going after it and then broadcasting it has set a standard that is going to live as long as journalism itself, I'm sure. Ed Murrow made it plain to all of us who have been lucky enough to follow him

at CBS News that he was a reporter with a conscience. That accuracy, fairness, and the courage to face down pressure from government, from big business, pressure from power, is the sure sign of a good journalist. He had his run ins with all of the above, and he never lost his way. His fresh eyes, his eloquence, and his willingness to go in harm's way made him a reporter's reporter, and I can think of no higher tribute. Edward R. Murrow's professionalism, his integrity, his courage are well known. But I want you to think about another of his qualities. He was a progressive. He experimented with television. I think the popular phrase is, he pushed the envelope. He did things that hadn't been done before, and he did them successfully. I think if Edward R. Murrow were still with us, he would be doing things as they are being done today, pushing the envelope. He'd be using graphics, the paint box. He might or might not be using hidden cameras if he remade Harvest of Shame, in order to see the plight

of migratory workers. But I think he would consider it. So when you talk to people about Edward R. Murrow, talk about the things that he stood for. But talk about how he would have carried forward with them. I think it honors his memory far more to say, not let's do it exactly as Edward R. Murrow did, but let's do it the way Edward R. Murrow might do it today. Hello, I'm Tom Brokaw, NBC News in New York, and I am one of those members of the broadcast journalism fraternity who consider Edward R. Murrow to be my godfather in this business, even though we never met. I grew up in the prairie hamlets of South Dakota, and long before we ever had television, I remember the distinctive voice of Edward R. Murrow reporting on the great events of the day, and it was then I think that I began to consider the idea that I too could go from a small town in the western United States and travel the world and report on the historic events, the momentous changes that are so important for the American people to

know about. His legacy does not need my endorsement, but I cannot imagine broadcast journalism without the early formative years of Edward R. Murrow. His ethics, his values, his dedication to the essence of the craft of this business of reporting what he was seeing in a way in which he did it factually, but at the same time in a way the whole country could understand what it was that he was talking about and come to care about those events, however separated they may have been from them. So it's a real pleasure, indeed it's a privilege for me to join in this small tribute to a great man, Edward R. Murrow Provost Bates has asked me to read these remarks to you this evening.

To honor Edward R. Murrow and to keep the Murrow tradition alive, the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication and Washington State University are indeed proud and privileged to bestow the Murrow Award to the most deserving of communication professionals and organizations in the world. The Murrow Award recognizes the person or organization exemplifying, with service or performance, the professional ideals of Edward R. Murrow, the illustrious alumnus of our own communications school, the first name. The Murrow Award has been given to some of communication and broadcasting's most influential and respected professionals and executives. Among previous recipients are Walter Cronkite, Sam Donaldson, Frank Latham, Al Neuharth, Ted Turner, Bernard Shaw, and Daniel Schorr. This year's recipient joins their company. She is honored in this video from CNN and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd., which we now

present to you. I'm Christiane Amanpour, reporting live from Mogadishu. We believe that we have seen the first Navy Seals land ashore...[inaudible] [inaudible] also a lot of civilian damage. Let me try to give you some details that may put a human face on some of what's going on. The real story of what's happening here is still to be told. That never in any century have so many men, women, and children been killed so quickly as in Rwanda in Africa. Oh my God. This one still has a rosary around its neck. Yeah. [inaudible] There's another launch...Christiane Amanpour, CNN [inaudible] Christiane Amanpour has a reputation for be as fearless as they come. She has a passion for her work and never seems to doubt its value. But does she ever feel afraid? Or has she simply learned to control it? I started at the bottom,

completely at the bottom. They said, oh you're foreign, go on the foreign desk. This comes from the Pentagon, their command center, and they track me apparently. I think it's a joke, don't you, but it's cute isn't it? And they track me, where I am and a lot of places I go,um some of the American military think we always wait to where you're going because we know we're going to be there shortly afterwards. I think I'm proud mostly of what I've done in Bosnia. I believe that we journalists did our duty. We went there, we stayed, for years, and did what we are mandated to do. We told the story. When you said that you know that you couldn't be neutral in Bosnia and um Now Martin Bowers has talked to me about his journalism of detachment, praising firing people who care. What, how would you describe why. I am a great friend and colleague of Martin Bowers, but I don't call it journalism of detachment, because I actually don't believe that

that's what it is or that that's what we should be doing. But what I do think is that we have to understand the principles of our profession. So in this case, everybody is sort of glommed on to the idea of objectivity, and they said Christiane has perhaps lost her objectivity, she's identifying with one side. And I said to them, No. Understand, what does objectivity mean? It means giving all sides an equal hearing. It means seeking all sides of the story. But it does not mean treating all sides the same. Christiane, we are deeply honored to have you here tonight. During your career, you've shown us again and again an extraordinary commitment to reporting the news

and to our right to know what's going on. And obviously your tireless work behind the scenes is what makes you successful. You are known around the world for your work on camera, but all of us know that the credibility you have is more than just a camera presence. It's built on superb reporting and investigative skills and the respect of others. We are amazed and continue to be amazed by new technology and the way it's used in news broadcasting. But technology is not the story, and without the drive and determination of you and others using it, it means nothing. And I'd like you to come up now if you would please. Christiane, I want you to know that we take the values

of Edward R. Murrow very seriously in our School of Communication and hopefully in the whole university, the values that represent courage and honesty and that are embodied in the work that you do, and it's with great pride that I present you with this enormously heavy plaque, that we will mail to you later. Oh that's fine. [inaudible] Thank you. Thank you very much. That was very nice to have a standing ovation. It's always better to have it before if you're ever going to get it. Well, you know, I walk in, I see these pictures of this impossibly romantic hero, who was not just a

romantic hero, but obviously the single greatest practitioner and the single greatest inspiration and example that we all strive to follow. When I was asked to accept this award, I was not only honored but actually stunned. I was particularly pleased to note that I'm the first woman to win it. And in light of some of that video you saw of me, when I was, I think, several years younger, I'm particularly pleased to note that I'm the youngest person to have won it. So, my morale is very high tonight. I feel very good. I read obviously so much about this university, about the Murrow School before I came over here. And what impressed me so much is not only the

dedication and uh determination that this school has to turn out really top class broadcast journalists, but the fact that it has. There are so many names that I recognize amongst your graduating alumnus of previous years, and I'm sure that is a tradition that will continue. I'd like to thank President Rawlins and to thank Alex Tan for, and all the faculty and everybody here who has welcomed me and who is responsible for me standing here today. I really do appreciate it. And I'm deeply honored. I'd like to thank Jeff Arkid and Lou Gelhaus who escorted me over here. I've traveled all over the world, uh but this is the furthest north and the furthest west that I've ever traveled. And I, and I definitely needed their competent arms to bring me down here. So thank you both very much. When I first joined CBS 60 Minutes as a contributing correspondent, part of the reason that I was so honored to be able to

do that is not just that it is a first-class broadcast, but as you saw in the tribute to Edward R. Murrow, the people who knew him and are still inspired by him and remember the example he set, still are there, at least some of them. And in a remark that I don't know whether I was meant to hear or not but it certainly got back to me, Don Hewitt once said to somebody that, you know, if she'd been a boy and being born back then, she would have been one of the Murrow Boys. So that was the biggest, you know, the biggest compliment. It was a particular compliment because I must admit that, being born in a foreign land, I'm not an American citizen, I didn't grow up here, I grew up outside the United States, I was not as aware of the mythical and magisterial Edward R. Murrow that so many people in this country grow up knowing about. It was only some way into my career that I realized the immenseness of his presence and the defining

shape that he gave our profession. And again, of course I know that it's a cliche and everybody says it, but I genuinely admire him for the qualities that President Rawlins enumerated and for all the qualities you know that he had, and not just for the qualities that he and the heroic Murrow Boys exhibited, but for the principles they showed and the lines they drew in the sand for the moral issues that they grappled with during World War II. And I think I admire most of all the fact that Edward R. Murrow was an ordinary man, and as an ordinary man confronted with extraordinary evil and extraordinary challenges in his professional life, he and many of the Murrow Boys came out on the right side of history, and that's very very difficult, and it's and it's an extreme challenge, and he proved that it's possible to do. And it's something that has always motivated me. And indeed reading about Murrow, reading about that generation of reporters, gave me much-needed

retrospective moral support. I felt, for instance in one of my first journalistic assignments of, of real importance, I felt very acutely the deep moral issues that we grappled with, for instance, from reporting in Bosnia. That war might seem far away now. But of course it occupied the front pages of all the newspapers, the headlines of all the television news stories, for almost an entire decade, and it was my generation's decade, it was our defining moment. I covered the whole war from when it started almost exactly 10 years ago this month up to when it ended four long years later. And then I spent the rest of the time there on and off covering the peace process. It was certainly the first such horror and the first such ethnic murder and atrocity perpetrated in Europe since the Nazis in World War II. And we, the younger generation of journalists, had seen nothing like it. For many of us, for me certainly, it was really the first real war that we had covered. I'd covered the Gulf

War, but this was something completely different. And we were learning how to cover it as we went. For myself, it wasn't just about learning the basics of being a ro-, a war reporter, but the challenge I found was the very real moral dimension of this war. Because we were faced with, as you all know, a Serbian onslaught against Muslims in general. That's what it amounted to in Bosnia. And it was characterized by horrendous and grotesque attacks against civilians, not against another army, but against civilians. The point of the Serbian onslaught in Bosnia was not, was to carve out their own ethnically pure state, and that meant that it was a war against civilians. Civilians did not get caught in the crossfire. They were the targets. And as we know from reading the Geneva Conventions and all the rules of war, attacking civilians is, is, is illegal. It's a war crime. And this of course just because of their religion. So

for us reporters, staying quiet, remaining neutral was not a moral or a practical option. In the face of this unspeakable atrocity and evil, we were called upon to take a stand, or at least I felt that I was called upon, and all my colleagues should have been called upon, to take a stand. Any of those in this room who may go out into the world of journalism or broadcasting may one day be called to take a stand and may one day be faced with a moral dilemma, and it's always easier to refuse, obviously. But in my view, what we journalists say and how we would report the truth, how we react in critical times in history, defines not just the moment, but defines us as professional, and more importantly defines us as people. As a journalist, Bosnia forced me to face serious questions about the rules of our profession. What, I sort of alluded to that in the video you saw there, what does

objectivity mean in war? What does our cardinal rule really mean? In the instances such as Bosnia or Rwanda or World War II that Murrow was grappling with, what does it really mean? We were under a lot of pressure to try, to treat each side equally, and as I alluded to in that video that you saw, it is often impossible and in fact not just impossible but unacceptable. It, we shouldn't try to treat all sides equally in situations such as Bosnia. You cannot draw a balance between aggressor and victim. You cannot draw a balance between a murderer and the dead. And so in Bosnia I realized that objectivity did mean giving all sides a fair hearing and seeking all sides of the story, but not concluding that all sides were equal and not concluding that we should be treating them all. Because if you do that in the face of genocide, if you do try to draw a moral

equivalence falsely where it doesn't exist, if you do try to enforce a balance where it doesn't exist, if you are neutral in the mistaken notion that that is what our profession demands, objectivity is not neutrality, you are a short step away from being an accomplice. And I would remind everyone that the chief perpetrator of the Balkan wars, Slobodan Milosevic, is now in a prison cell at the International War Crimes Tribunal, on trial for array of charges, including the charge of genocide. I start with the moral dimension for two reasons. First, because Murrow faced the same dilemmas covering the Nazi campaign, and secondly because I really believe now, and I'm sure, that the fair, accurate, and uncomfortable reporting from Bosnia, for instance, just as a one instance, made our lives as journalists much more dangerous. I have lost too many friends and colleagues to snipers and mortars and landmines, and many many more of my friends and colleagues have been

wounded. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that 18 reporters were killed in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia during the years of the wars since 1992. And that's a lot, but it's not just in Bosnia, and I entitled these remarks "Killing the Messenger". I've covered Algeria, where 59 journalists were killed by extremists from '92 to 2001, Russia where 27 journalists have been killed during the same period, mostly by mafias who didn't, didn't appreciate independent journalists are investigating with diligence that corruption, uncovering and exposing them after the fall of the Soviet Union. I've covered Sierra Leone, where 14 journalists have been killed in that time period and killed covering rebels who have acquired the unique distinction of being amongst the most barbaric rebel group in recent memory, their rule characterized by the systematic abuse of civilians, including the chopping off of

arms, legs, limbs of people who so much looked at them askance. And two years ago almost to this date, it'll be two years tomorrow, I lost two of my very close friends and colleagues in a military ambush, in a rebel ambush in Sierra Leone. But since September 11th, journalism has had an especially bad year, a year full of casualties. There were eight journalists killed in Afghanistan in one week alone shortly after the fall of Kabul in November of last year, and then we were all horrified by the appalling and the politically motivated murder and execution of Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal in Pakistan. That was earlier this year. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists again, the leading cause of death for journalists in the year 2001 was assassination and murder. And that's something that bears simply thinking about. In Afghanistan, more journalists have been killed than U.S. servicemen fighting the

war. Our job is dangerous, 69 people killed around the world in 2001. But what's happening, as far as I can gather, is that it's not just journalists being caught in the crossfire, as may have happened in generations before, but these days we are being deliberately targeted. Warlords, extremists, assorted thugs are increasingly killing the messenger because they don't like what we say. And part of this is because of the rise of globalized 24-hour-a- day and live television. In a way, it's brought so much good to the world. It's democratized information. It has brought information to some of the most far-flung corners of the earth. It's given people, who only rely, in certain, certain countries and states, who can only rely on state-controlled, state run media, that amounts to propaganda. Our CNN, and others that have managed to penetrate this shield, has brought people an alternative. But at the same time, the people

that we report on in real time, in their neighborhood, see us. They don't like it when we're exposing them, criticizing them, and we're doing it, as I say, in their backyard. They can reach us. And increasingly they are reaching us. Now to try and cope better with some of these dangers, CNN and a small group of other broadcasters have taken the lead in trying to better protect their journalists, giving them hostile environment training with a form of special forces. These courses are being held in England mostly, with former SAS elite British forces, who teach us how to go into battle, which we're not, we're just going to do our job. But it's increasingly become, for us, a battle zone. How to prepare for an ambush or a kidnapping. They teach us battlefield first aid. CNN and this other group of broadcasters who's taken the lead in insisting that all their correspondents and other staff members have this

protection, also provides us with bullet-proof vests, with armored vehicles. Um all of this helps, but as you can imagine, it also creates and has the danger of fostering a sort of a bunker mentality. So we we're really having to figure out how best to be able to do our job and protect ourselves without shutting ourselves off and becoming overly scared and overly intimidated. A less physically dangerous but equally stifling challenge is censorship. This is not killing the messenger, but shutting the messenger up, which essentially amounts to the same thing. We find censorship in all of the usual places, in the dictatorships, in the monarchies, in the quasi democracies, in the states which are run by strong people who really don't have any commitment to a free press. But what really sticks in our throats is censorships in democracies, democracies with constitutional amendments for free

speech. This has been particularly noticeable here in the United States, during particularly the recent campaign in Afghanistan. We journalists have had no meaningful access to the U.S. military in Afghanistan. It's worse than just censorship. It's an almost complete denial and refusal of access to the military there. And therefore the U.S. public, the people, the families, the general sort of awareness here is I think being uh very poorly served. Yes, the occasional reporter gets to have some access. But this is the exception and not the rule. At the moment, horrifyingly enough, the Pentagon has decided to allow Hollywood producers to have special access to the special forces, to make reality programming and documentaries, and this of course will be interesting, it'll be on television and it will be fascinating, but it's not instead of, it shouldn't be instead of real news reporting. But in fact it is instead of right now.

Pentagon says it's a matter of national security. But as I say the public is definitely poorer for not knowing what is going on in Afghanistan, and history is the poorer too, because some of the finest documentary and documentation of military campaigns throughout history has been done by journalists at the front. And just to explain, that we journalists don't expect to go and sort of run riot with any military that we cover. We don't expect to go and to be able to have access into every nook and cranny and to be able to report secrets and blow operational security and basically act like, you know, unwelcome guests. We who are experienced and who've been doing this for many, many years, we know the rules and we accept the rules. We know that when we're with the military we are not allowed to divulge certain things. We're not allowed to divulge anything that would compromise operational uhhsecurity. Nothing in real time. We're not allowed to divulge anything that would compromise national security. And we accept that.

And yet we're still not getting close to this particular campaign. There will obviously always be a sort of a low-level war between the media's desire to know everything and the military's desire to divulge little. There will always have to be some kind of balance. But right now that balance is out of whack and we're getting no access. I asked, recently I was, happened to be talking to Walter Cronkite about this, and I asked him whether I was whingeing too much, whether perhaps, you know, I was out of line. Maybe we should just accept what the Pentagon says in this particularly special case, because that's what they do say. This is such a special case and, you know, etc. And of course Walter Cronkite in a previous era, as you know, not only covered the military but trained with the military in order to be able to cover them, for instance in World War II, flying with them, parachuting in with them, behind the, behind enemy lines on many of the battle fronts. Cronkite said to me that in Afghanistan and in any anywhere where this war on terrorism is taking place,

American soldiers are fighting in the name of the American people. This is a democracy, the people have the right and the duty to know what is going on. And we are the messengers who are meant to be bringing back uh their stories. He said that he felt that our bosses, all the news executives, should be pounding, pounding on the doors of the Pentagon and in the corridors of the administration and demanding that we get proper access in order to be able to do a proper job. Ironically, of course, I believe that by denying reporters any meaningful access, the Pentagon loses out in a way, because most of the journalists that I know, and certainly this is true for myself, have a very positive view about the current campaign in Afghanistan. For myself, who has covered Afghanistan in the years, many years before this current situation, the fact that the totalitarian Taliban regime, as well as al Qaeda's

infrastructure, has been destroyed, this is a good thing. And we would report it and when we can, have reported it as that. America loses out in another way too. And this is a very important way, because by not letting us close to some of its military activity... And military activity, remember, is not just about bombing, it's about reconstruction, it's about helping in nation building, it's about helping refugees and people go back to their homes, it's about helping and providing security for schools to reopen. By not allowing us a good look at what the American special forces are doing, TV audiences around the world are getting only one view of America, and that is the grainy green nightscope vision of bombs falling. And this does nothing to help America's image in the world. It just reinforces the image of America in some parts of the world, and I think you know the corners of the world that I mean, it reinforces the image that

America is only about bombing. If we were able to show much more in a full context of what this military campaign has meant and the true liberation it has brought, let's just take Afghanistan for one place. If we were able to show that, it might go a long way towards moderating the view of America in some parts of the world, and that can only be a good thing in view of, in view of what some parts of the world think about the United States. And another way too, the soldiers and their families lose out on a personal and on a morale-boosting level. They don't get to have their good deeds showcased. And all of this of course has been couched by us and sort of inferred by the Pentagon that there's, you know, as I said, a whole issue of security and secrecy, but also about patriotism. It is, we are told, our patriotic duty to accept what they tell us, without question and without wanting to, you know, get more access. And

that brings me to another thing that in recent months has stifled the messenger, and that is the issue of patriotism. And we have labeled, labored under the sometimes false interpretation of patriotism since September the 11th. You've seen every time you turn on your television, lapel pins, flags, flags waving on U.S. television screens, everything in red, white, and blue. In a way that's totally understandable. I fully understand that. Something terrible happened in this country and people, and we are parts of the community, and people want to make their feelings known, and that's good. But when it becomes an official mindset, it gets a little bit worrying for us. I was stunned, for instance, when a few days after September 11th the White House spokesman, in response to some public comments by a comedian about September 11, the White House spokesman said that American people and the press should quote, Watch what they say. I mean, what, what did that mean?

I was stunned when a tabloid daily called me a war slut for daring to do my job, which was to report from the Middle East, um the context and how America is viewed in some parts of the world. I was equally stunned when mine and other networks acceded to the White House's slightly hysterical demands not to show bin Laden's tapes because, they told us, that there may be coded messages in those tapes. Well, to this date there is no information that I have, no evidence that I or anybody else has, that any codes existed in those tapes. And I would be very clear, I have no time for bin Laden's ranting and raving, and I don't believe in putting on bin Laden's tapes just for, you know, showbiz value, but I think to deny people what he says is dangerous. Bin Laden over the years has forewarned

and advertised many of his horrendous attacks through the videotapes that he has made, the propaganda tapes that he's made, and in some instances through interviews with journalists. And so in my view, surely proper non-sensational sober reporting of those tapes is in the public's right to know obviously, but also in the interest of public security. And surely that would be more patriotic and that is more our duty, to actually bring the stories in all their complexity even when they're uncomfortable, and to bring those stories we bring reliable and accurate information. We cannot be tailoring our reports to suit the politics of the day, in no matter what country we are. In retrospect, perhaps some of this attitude was inevitable. Obviously as I say, and I don't diminish the shock value that September 11th had for everybody in this country and all of us who cover these kinds of things as well. But I do remember after September 11th a sort of

foreign-news-starved American people asking Why? Why do they hate us? What's happening? And I honestly truly believe that if we, the news media, had been doing our jobs properly or better, then perhaps we might have been able to, over a period of years, been bringing more of these kinds of stories that would better prepare our audiences for whatever inevitability. And I say that because, over the last decade, we've experienced ruthless cutbacks in the coverage of foreign news. And I think that that has contributed significantly to a lack of familiarity with the rest of the world and what the rest of the world is thinking. And I think that in in its worst case, that leads, that lack of information leads to, can lead to a lack of security. I think that, um

having said that, as I say, I mean, it's been for, for me very, very difficult to watch this sort of 10 -year slash-and-burn through foreign news coverage, and I think that, as I say, people have been impahred, impoverished by the lack of that kind of significant news coverage. CNN, you know I would say this, wouldn't I? But CNN has, which is entirely committed to foreign news coverage, has been spared some of the draconian cutbacks that other networks have suffered. And right now, of course, since September 11, we've experienced a sort of an international renaissance across the board, all the networks and maybe some local stations, I don't know because I don't get to watch them, but newspapers and everywhere have suddenly rediscovered foreign news. It's cool again. You know Edward R. Murrow would, would, I don't want to say turn in his grave, but he would. I mean, this is what he brought to the American people. A classy, important, relevant, and desperately needed foreign coverage. And we've really gotten away from that tradition in this country, and I really hope, I really hope that September 11th in all its horror

will have at least had the effect of forever putting foreign news coverage back on the map again. I hope that it's not just a fad. And I hope that it doesn't fade sometime after the first anniversary. And I hope that all our executives will recognize that serious coverage, not just the coverage of international events, but this is a vital part of responsible journalism today and that it is our social service as professional journalists, and it's our duty. If there's anybody in this audience who may be thinking of going out into the world of broadcast journalism, I would urge you to consider. Look way to the horizon, and consider joining the ranks of foreign correspondents and foreign-produced people who, who, who cover and gather foreign news, because it is an immensely privileged perch. It's very rewarding, very fulfilling, as well as obviously in many occasions being exceptionally exciting, and I mean I can't imagine a better job. It's just, it's great.

Despite all I've just said. [laughter] Killing the messenger can take many forms. Covering certain parts of the world can be more difficult than covering other parts of the world because of intense histories, intense emotions, intense and rival ancient claims to various lands, pieces of land. Former Yugoslavia was one of those. Kashmir, right now the battle between Pakistan and India. And especially the Middle East. In these places, you can take any level of society, the people, the press, the professionals, they are all professional media critics. They scrutinize every word of our reports. They scrutinize the syntax. They complain if one word is placed close to this word. I mean it is absolutely incredible. But

the accumulated pressure can be immobilizing. It certainly, for me, I find it unbearable. We are accused by all sides of having an agenda, of being biased and not understanding the real story. In the Middle East, the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we face especially intense pressure from viewers and concerned groups. Today there's a story in The New York Times which uh says that organizations that are supporters of Israel have organized boycotts of, of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Well, the great thing, of course, about the United States is you can do that kind of thing. But for us, the troubling thing is that, what does that mean? Are we meant to be pressured to tailor our reports to, to suit certain groups? The Palestinians are doing the same thing, not in terms of boycotts, but in terms of e-mailing and bombarding and, and you know, complaining that we don't cover the situation properly. And it is

a very, very difficult line to navigate because I believe, obviously, in legitimate criticism. I think that if any reporter is found doing a dishonest job or getting something desperately factually wrong or being overtly political or biased, then that's a big problem. But when you get, what we're seeing is the same kinds of criticisms from both sides. And what it means is that very, you know, organized groups on all sides are simply trying to get us to tell the story from their point of view. And it is a lot of pressure. It's particularly high pressure on our bosses and on the executives who get all this, get all this e-mail or get all these letters, and it is a, it is a challenge for us to continue doing our job, which is to do our job accurately, fairly, and in a timely fashion. I was talking about this subject, fascinated by another recent article, which I think appeared, it was, it was a column, I think it appeared in The New York Times, about the Pew

Research Center, which spoke about the views on this particular issue amongst the American public. They found, as you would expect, that American people, what they found obviously that the Americans have an overwhelming sympathy with Israel, Israel's right to exist, Israel's right to have a defended and secure border. But they had a much more nuanced view of the whole situation in general, much more nuanced and in a way mature than sometimes the congressional, the political, and the media elite in this country would have us believe. They favored a much more neutral role for the United States in this issue. One of the big challenges for the American media is, it seems to me, staying in touch with what people around the country are really thinking, what they're interested in, um because we see so many examples all the time of how journalism can be totally sort of inspired and restricted by

what's known as inside-the-beltway uh concerns, which often don't reflect the way people around the country view certain issues. I've always thought that the viewers and the readers in this country, basically the people of this country, are much more mature than either the political or the media elite in this country give them credit for. And I've always worked from that principle in my reporting. I refuse to talk down to the CNN viewers, and I have a great respect for our viewers. For me, that's an essential, it's an essential to be able to do my job. I find that I would not be able to have respect for myself as a journalist if I didn't understand that I am talking to a very well-informed, very, you know, interested, very aware population, and I really mean that, because we are often told that, oh you know people are too silly, you know, they don't understand, they don't want to know, they don't, they don't, they don't, you know so just make it

silly and easy and don't give them any, anything important, just make it, you know, sort of like television candy. And I've always refused to go that route. Um despite the insistence of what I've called the hocus pocus focus groups that seem to dictate what TV news puts on the air these days. I do think, and I have found in my conversations, in the letters I get, in the e-mails I have, and the correspondence I maintain with many of our viewers, that people are concerned about serious things. They are interested in international news, and of course this has to be done in a compelling, in a compelling and relevant way. I was heartened, as I keep going through my clips and I keep ripping up newspapers and putting them aside when they have things that I think I must mention, that you know, during the Kosovo campaign in 1999 Rutgers University organized a sit-in for students about Kosovo, and they'd set up 80 chairs for the students, and they found that

400 students came, and that's great. I mean that's great. And people were saying that they realized that this was important, it was something that they had to care about. I believe that Americans first of all are a very compassionate and good people. They have a profound sense of justice, a respect for human rights. And when we bring them the stories of the wholesale abuse of people's rights and the abuse of people's fundamental dignity, I find that people respond, and I always say it's not, it's not how you tell the story, it's...Can I change that around? It's not what story you tell, it's how you tell the story, basically. You can, you know, you can, you can, you can take any issue out there. And if you don't make it relevant and compelling, then nobody's going to watch it, whether it's a story that you do about, you know, anything in your backyard or whether it's a story about famine in Africa. So I found that it's really how you tell the story that resonates with people.

Despite all the dangers and some of the serious constrictions and restrictions that we work under, I strongly believe, as you can imagine, in this profession. I see it as more of a calling than just as a job. I've always been strongly motivated by the public service nature of what we do. And from my experience and from my travels, I see that journalism, especially good journalism, is so often the pillar of society and a vital pillar, and I mean, I mean mostly from where I travel abroad, in so many emerging democracies and emerging civil societies around the world, it's incredible when you see the bold, courageous, and highly motivated journalists who are so often at the vanguard of social change. And I think, I truly do believe that a well-functioning democracy depends on a properly informed citizenry in order to be effective and strong. And as I say, I think that it's our duty. This is the job that we've chosen, this is the profession we've chosen. And this

is one that has to be shouldered with a great sense of responsibility. And I think that our job is, as well as doing all the things, you know, investigating, uncovering, reporting, searching, our job is also to help maintain civil society. It's to stand up for human rights, to uphold values, to support ethical societies. Those of you who may be going into the world, going forth and seeking out this great field of journalism, I think that you should have no greater goal than trying to change the world, or at least making a difference, or at least as Ted Turner, who I know was honored here a few years ago, said, try to make the world a little better. Try to make it a better place. It's, it's important to try to be a constructive force, I think, for journalists, rather than falling into the very easy trap of being a destructive force in society. Sometimes it pains me and often it shames me to think of the caricature of a journalist that is put

about so much today. The loud, the screaming, the preening, preening prima donna, the scavenging around in the gutter, of the offering up of just the silly and the sensational. I think it's very, very, it's, it's very important to sort of pull that image and try to get back to something more self respecting. Bill Kovach, I don't know how many of you may have heard of him, he used to be the editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he then went to the Nieman Foundation at Harvard, and he is a mentor to many young journalists right now. He recently made a speech in which he said that when reliable, factual, and accurate information is not constantly replenished, this causes toxicity to our civic health, allowing our atmosphere to be polluted with trivia and gossip. Journalists, as I said, I believe we are part of the communities in which we live. We're part of our neighborhood, we're part of our world, and we should be a public service. We should at least take

on that as part of our mandate. Last week I read in a column during graduation week, I read in a column about college graduates and what motivates them. It said that on many campuses this year, graduating students would not only be wearing their cap and gown but also a green ribbon to show that they've taken what's called the "graduation pledge". Apparently this is a signed promise to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job that they consider. And I think that's great, because I know that the pressure in this country, and in many parts of the world, our entire value system is built on the principle and the doctrine of accumulation, accumulation of wealth, fame, fortune, celebrity. But I do think that with all of those entirely acceptable goals, public service should be in there as well. After September 11th, the New Yorker magazine uh commented on the fantastic coverage that the New York

Times did of the aftermath of September 11th, saying, quote "not for the first time when New York is reminded how lucky they are to have a newspaper run by a public-spirited family that regards the bottom line as a means and not an end." And I believe every good manager surely must know (manager in our business) that good journalism also makes good business sense. All you have to do is look at 60 Minutes, Nightline, the other programs that are devoted to good journalism and also are very successful. It is possible. When people ask whether television news is supposed to be a money-making machine or something a little more, I always say that I don't think you can hold news and information up to the same commercial standards as consumer items, such as Coca-Cola or sneakers or whatever it might be. I think that in the past, the truth is that before the era of corporate takeovers, news divisions provided

their corp-, their parent companies with a sense of pride, a sense that they were real players on the world stage. And I think that these days when people go to, you know, go to their cocktail parties or corporate dinners, people do talk about the news, they talk about what's going on in the world. They like to be players on the stage. Let me quote an unlikely source just to illustrate this. The jazz musician and TV programmer Branford Marsalis, brother of Wynton Marsalis, he said a few years ago that people always ask, how do you get jazz records to sell more? The answer is simple, you don't. Jazz is not about money, and it never will be. Jazz music lends artistic respectability to a label, which their pop stars cannot. Everybody knows this except maybe the pop stars. Columbia Records shareholders don't talk about Mariah Carey. They hardly know from Bruce Springsteen. They talk about Billie Holiday, about Miles

Davis, and, he said, about my brother Wynton. I read that interview back in 1999 and I kept the clipping, found it very inspiring, and I think that you could transpose that very easily to the news business. It is, as I said, the news that many of our corporate masters talk about when they get together. It's what's happening in the world, it's them being the head of this, you know, great organization that brings back all this incredibly interesting information. It's the news reporters and the great anchors and the great practitioners that people talk about, the Walter Cronkite, the Ted Koppel, Barbara Walters, and of course nobody has been more talked about and more respected than Edward R. Murrow. I was going to quote something that you already quoted about Murrow. It was a while ago so I'll do it again. In your pamphlet. And it just stands out for me. You know Edward R. Murrow is credited with making broadcast journalism respectable,

courageous, and sincere. Those are two really, three really great and important words. He's also crediting, credited with inspiring the standards to which we all aspire. I would like also to finish with a quote that has already been quoted today, but I, every time I hear it, I just think it's just unbelievably fantastic, and it's a quote that, as you know, is inscribed on the Columbia DuPont Awards, the silver batons, and it's something that, a principle that guided me before I even knew that it was, that had been written so perfectly: This instrument can teach. It can illuminate, and yes, it can inspire inspire, but it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely lights and wires in a box. So it's all about us and not the technology. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, that's very generous. And I would love to answer some questions unless you're hustling me off. ..[.audience laughter] Well, thank you very much Christiane for being an inspiration to all of us. I think you should know that Christiane flew into Seattle this afternoon from London, arriving at 3:15, hopped on a plane with with Jeff and Lou to accept the award today and to spend some time with us. She is leaving tonight for Seattle at 9:30. And so I think you'll understand why we will have to limit the Q&A to about 15 minutes. So if you have a question, please go to the microphone and please identify yourself.

Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, I am Tayen Ken, I'm a doctoral student in communication. I have two questions. The first question is about the related to globalization and that you mentioned that the ruthless cutback of the foreign news bureau. Did in my view that globalization bring about like uh more instant flow of information and commodity. Uh Hum. At the same time to me, it's kind of uh contradictory or paradoxical that there's cutting down the importance of bureaus and duties. How do you explain this kind of a contradictory trend? And what's your, if you have a kind of a theory to explain? Another question. May I answer that one first? Because I'll forget it otherwise. Thank you.

I think it's very simple. I mean, as you pointed out, the incredible, I mean the ridiculousness of thinking that you can cut back people's avenues of information at a time when the world is becoming so much more interconnected and so much more complicated, that the notion that you would think that it's possible to cut off Americans from the flow of information from around the world is just beyond the beyond. But this is what's happened, and it's happened for a very simple reason. It's called the bottom line. As our corporations have been taken over by real corporations, we're no longer media organizations anymore. You know, Ted Turner, who you honored here at this university a few years ago, in my view was the last publisher in charge of a great news organization. Well, he doesn't exist anymore in terms of being the head of our organization. And what you have is people who are committed to, to the bottom line and to their

shareholders. And so news has become a commodity, and that's the answer to your question. I'm hoping that they understand now, particularly in the wake of September 11th, that when it comes to news and information, that is a dangerous path to go down. Thank you. The second question is about, you mentioned about cynicism or kind of your, you have a positive respect for the American public audiences. However, there are a lot of research shows that... Let me just answer it. I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that all the little polls and focus groups and surveys show that Americans don't care about X, Y, and Z. And I will tell you that for all of those ones that show that, there are equal numbers of polls and respectable institutions that show the opposite. And I would also posit, and I don't know this for sure, but I am sure that the focus groups, I don't know for sure but I'm sure, I am, I'm

convinced that the focus groups go out and they ask very inappropriate questions. They say, for instance, let's just take an example here that's just, I'm making up. Are you more concerned about a cure for breast cancer or about starving children in Rwanda? Well, I would say breast cancer, right? But that's not the point. The point is not whether it's a or b. The point is, can you, are you interested in, if we tell you about blah blah blah, that this exists there? And generally, when you put it like that, the answer is yes, we'd be interested. So it's all skewed, all these things. I think what you have to look at right now is that readership is up, viewership is up, and you have to ask yourselves why. Obviously it's September 11th, but why? It shows that something massive has happened, and people want to know about it and more about it.

And, as I say, it's how you tell the story that counts. And I do honestly, I, I, I'm not under any illusion that Americans think that to know about far-flung corners of the world is more important than to know about things that directly relate to them at home. What I'm saying is you can't cut off the whole world. You have to do both. OK. Thank you. Hello, Ms. Amanpour, it's an honor to have you here. My name is Megan Simons and I'm a graduate student in the criminal justice program. This fall I was very moved by a program that CNN put under the CNN Presents series.Um I believe it was called Beneath the Veil. Yes. It was about women in the Taliban. And I would like to know what you think of the merit of that type of work and the follow-up work that that same reporter also did, as compared to the type of work that you do in the field, as far as informing the American public. Well. Luckily for us CNN is one of the last bastions that actually has a slot for documentaries as well as spot news coverage.

I have done some of those documentaries, and it's not sort of a, it's not a this or that. I mean certain correspondents do. But I think the merit of having documentaries is enormous, because it gives you an hour to explore an issue rather than, you know, a daily sort of two-minute, or three-minute piece. You can't have one and not the other. But the challenge is to be able to have both of those kinds of outlets, and I think it's fantastic that we at CNN, uh I think, I think if I'm not mistaken, I don't know any other of the outlets that has documentaries that are ongoing, you know, in terms of broadcast outlet, and... obviously PBS does. But in terms of commercial broadcasting, we're, we're one of the few left and I think the merit of those those programs is huge, and you've got a really good look at that uh from that program at the plight of women under the Taliban. Thank you. My name is Jeanie Sincline, in my second year here at Washington State University. Um in

summer of 1997, you said that you are the next generation and you know you cannot ignore your role in the world. You cannot pretend that what happens in this world won't affect each of us and every one of you, and I take that to heart. I really do. My only problem per se, and I think that with our generation with the new technology that's coming about, uh with this people's right to know and national security pretty much at a tug um and the global sharing of technology in this fight for our right to publicly know, how do we as a journal- or new journalist or future journalist learn to draw the line between stepping above their authority and being able to report responsible journalism and where is this going to take us? Well, I think that, um you know, that there are rules that are in place. I mean, you, you, you'll know what is what is appropriate and what is allowed and what isn't. But as I say there are certain rules. Let's just take milit-, covering people's militaries,

whether it's here, whether it's in England, whether it's in France, whatever country you go to. Obviously non-democracies, the situation is completely different. You don't get any access and that's what a dictatorship is. You don't expect to have democratic access, but in a democracy um with a constitutional amendment for free speech such as this one,um quite a lot is allowed. And, as I say, there are rules whereby we understand what is not allowed, and we fully accept those rules. And let me just put it in a practical matter. Let's say I'm covering a unit which is going into battle. Do I want to broadcast before the action that this is going to happen so that I potentially and my unit can get wiped out? No. So this is common sense as well as anything else. We, we understand that and that and we fully accept it. We understand that there are things that we can't tell in real time because it compromises not just the

operation, but national security. And, as I say we accept it, but where we start to have a breakdown in communication between what we think our rights are and what they would like to, how they would like to restrict us, is when, as I said, that balance gets completely and totally out of whack. And the thing, of course, you know, I'm sort of like pushing a stone up a hill here, because it actually, right now there's no groundswell, there's no notion that the American public are not satisfied with what they're getting. In fact, as I say our reputation these days as a whole profession is so bad that frankly, I'm sure, most people say, oh my goodness don't let those journalists go anywhere, you go fight the fight, guys, win the war and come home, and to heck with what the journalists say they want to do. You know, nobody's sort of beating down the Pentagon's door on our behalf, saying let those journalists go and get some access. I fully recognize that. And I, I accept that there are many

journalists who perhaps would not stick by the rules and not abide the obvious common sense rules that I've talked about. And this, this impacts badly on those of us who would. So we're all being tarred with the same brush right now. That's not really an answer to your question. But I don't know what else to say because I mean, you know, it depends on, listen, let's face it, our bosses could, you know, perhaps do more to make sure that, to try to go up to Washington and talk to the, you know, senior people there, and I'm sure they do do a lot, but people, people need to, to fight more for our rights, I think, our bosses need to. Hopefully your bosses in the future will too. You know, it started, look, in this country it's very simple. It's because of the hangover from the Vietnam, where truly, truly the, uh some of the military brass and certainly the civilian brass in the Pentagon truly believe that the press lost the war in Vietnam, and

that is still a problem, so that when it came to the Gulf War that's when the first real draconian censorship went in, and we were all corralled, and we were sort of gathered in these pools, and, you know, and we didn't think it could get any worse, but at least there we had access. It was very controlled access, but we had access to the net, you know, here in Afghanistan, we've had virtually no access. It is difficult of course because when you're talking about special forces, you can't necessarily always go with them. But there are, there are ways, and those ways are still being denied to us. Ms. Amanpour, my name is David Miller. And like everybody else in this room, I have been following your, the good work you do for a number of years. And also, nobody looks snappier

jumping into a slit trench with a head scarf and a flak jacket on than you. Thank you. We have a word for that, it's called moxie. My, uh my question is this. Do you believe that, since you've been spending so much time diddy-bopping back and forth between Israel, Palestine, and so forth. Do you believe that this latest round of bullying by and general pigheadedness on the part of Ariel Sharon is taking away his power base, that the Knesset is probably getting a little tired of it, or do you think that they're just cheerfully rolling the tanks out, following along because they want to?

If I could just answer that slightly more broadly, I think the background to what you're seeing right now is the collapse of the so-called peace process back in Camp David in, in the, in the summer of 2000. After that, the Palestinian leadership failed to, to take the road of dialogue and chose the road of continued resistance and failed to say that, while this was a nice offer from Ehud Barak, it, maybe we couldn't accept it, but that we're going to go back and keep talking and keep the peace process on track. Instead it went to violence. This severely traumatized the Israeli public, particularly those on the peace camp who just wondered, So what more can we do? You know, they had really believed in the peace camp, in the peace process, and here it was being thrown back in their face. At the same time there was an election in Israel, and with

Ehud Barak thoroughly discredited because of the Palestinian intifada, they elected Ariel Sharon, and his popularity is very high right now. And what he's been doing is very popular in Israel, and there's nobody who denies the right of Israel to defend itself and to live secure and safe within its borders. What the future will hold, I really don't know. Whether either the Palestinian or the current Israeli leadership is committed to the peace process as we know it and is able to close a peace deal, I think that question is still very much open. And,uh and we're watching that process right now. So it's a very, it's a very crucial moment, I think, in the history of that region and um it's very, very difficult to see anything good at the moment, or anything being concluded... the murder rolls...yes

Okay, well, thank you... ... getting tired of all of the, all the murders, all that nonsense. Thank you very much. Thank you. One more? I have two quick questions. OK one quick question. It's, How have your years in journalism changed your views on humanity, or have they? Well that's a good question, and it's, well for me, it's a very profound question and it's a very profound issue. I've seen some of the worst things, I've seen things that I never ever thought I'd ever see, and I've seen done to civilians, by which I mean children and women and old men, unspeakable atrocities. But at the same time, in some of the same

places, I've seen acts of incredible heroism, nobility, and dignity. I've seen people who have been deeply wounded be able to rise above that and not turn the other cheek and offer the arm in the hand of peace and forgiveness and reconciliation and, to be frank, that's what gives me the hope. But it, it wears on you sometimes. Thank you. Miss Amanpour. Thank you again, Miss Amanpour. If you would like to hear and see more of Miss Amanpour

she is reporting on the one-hour special this weekend on capital punishment on CNN. Thank you very much and good evening.