Coverage of the 2003 Edward R. Murrow Symposium [part 2]

...war of words in the months leading up to the actual beginning of hostilities. One of the Bush administration's central claims or justifications for this war was that Iraq possessed the capabilities and was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. And it turns out that a central piece of that evidence was completely fabricated, forged documents. What explains the reluctance of the mainstream media to greet that claim with more skepticism at the time it was made, and in general the lack of questioning of the rationale, the justification for war in the months when it might have made a difference in terms of the policy outcome? Thank you. I think there was, that there was a lot of skepticism, and there was a lot of challenge, but I mean, you know, we don't know. I mean, you know, ultimately we don't know what's there and what isn't, and we still don't know for sure what's there and what isn't. But I think that there was plenty of skepticism from the mainstream press in advance of the war about whether indeed there was anything there. I mean

if, all you have to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple days and you know, I mean, we were all communist because we were questioning the administration's validation for going into Iraq. And so I think that there was, you know, that there was skepticism. But I don't think most people wanted, wanted to hear it very much. Well there there was, I recall briefing after briefing where where hard questions were asked at the time. And I also will say that on the chemical weapons story, without you know talking at all about conclusions, that Fox News I think has covered it better than any of the TV stations. And that's, you know, the cable that I think to an extent maybe we all love to hate but they've done they've they've done a pretty, somewhat sensationalized, but they they're hitting the story and I think they're probably pushing us and government to come out a little sooner than we like to on conclusions.

You know I, I, at the risk of alienating anybody I haven't already alienated... You're doing you're doing fine, don't worry, You're doing fine, don't worry, we're OK. Members of our panel, who I just realized, they're all print guys, so of cour-, uh the journalists here so of course look askance at even a TV critic. You know it's like the old story of the guy that says he's an anti-Communist, and somebody else says I don't care what kind of communist you are. You know I'd like to be really heretical, having worked at CNN in the days when CNN had a one rating. After the Gulf War, CNN had an 11 rating. The Gulf War, Gulf War 1, built CNN as a global news brand. I believe that there were many television news organizations that couldn't wait for this war to happen, that were looking forward to it, that were investing a lot of money in it, even though it meant a fall off of advertising temporarily. I don't believe that journalists calculate what's in the interests of their companies necessarily when

they make coverage decisions. I think that's that's too much of a conspiracy theory. But I do think that that companies do have interests, and that war is a great story. War sells, war brings viewers back to television. And so I think that there was an, a lot of interest in this and it's, have to you have to go back to 9/11 and recognize a trend towards a certain patriotic correctness, particularly in television media; anchors wearing the American flag, American flags in the banners, an attempt, a desire, not to get ahead of the audience in any way at a time when, when journalists could be accused of being traitors. The second thing that's new, and I wouldn't underestimate this in terms of your experience, is that there are new so-called news organizations or media companies that specialize in the politics of polarization. They want polarization. They promote. New York Post is now, you know, running daily features attacking the New York Times and trying

to delegitimate it. Fox News attacking MSNBC. And you know, a friend of mine, Michael Wolff, who writes for New York magazine, goes to the press briefing in Doha, writes an article that says the last place that you could possibly find out what's really happening in Iraq is to go to the CENTCOMM briefings. He writes a very clever column about all this, I would urge you to read. What happens, Rush Limbaugh gives out his email address on the air and his computer system is attacked and is immobilized in essence. In other words there's a, a way in which media people see themselves as righteous warriors for whatever beliefs they happen to hold and are willing and interested actually in trashing everyone else. The other day, just yesterday actually, I got a call from the Bill O'Reilly radio show. And what Bill O'Reilly was interested in was having me defend CNN. This, the head of news coverage and CNN

admitted that CNN withheld some information about its Iraqi staff for fear that they would be persecuted and therefore they had knowledge of certain human rights abuses but they didn't report it. It's one of those gray areas that you were talking about, where you have, where things get ugly, and you have to make certain decisions, and CNN decided not to report this and then admitted as as much and tried to talk about it. Fox News jumped right on them, you know, of course, they're their competitor, and were looking for someone to defend CNN. Oh, I couldn't do it, I was coming to the uni, Washington State University. So I was on the plane, so another media critic was called, and the media critic said, well, I'm willing to discuss what CNN did, but you know it's a kind of a gray area, and he said well, we don't want you, thank you very much. They were looking for black and white, to shade it that way, so that they could they could polarize the issue. And it's very much like, uh, President Bush saying you're either with us or you're against us. And when you get into that kind of bipolar world,

truth goes out the window. We're, we're just about out of time but if it's all right, Alex, I'd like to, there are a couple people waiting, so if we can.. Ladies, we'll take your questions, and one of us will answer them and then we'll have to bring this to a close. Okay. Go ahead please. All right, I'm a student here at Washington State University, and one of the classes I think that has benefited me most is my conscience 70 class which is taught by Dr. Rick Bissell. Think he's a doctor, I'm pretty sure he is. Got his doctorate. Anyway it's something he said. We're learning about framing in our class. We learned about it a little while back. Yeah. And basically what he said is that the media tells us what to think about, and I know that the media has sensationalized the war just because they can make a lot of money off of it. I mean, that's what people wanted, they want the media to tell them what's going on, and I know that consequently since we're doing so well in the war, that Bush's approval rating has soared by like over 25 percent, which is,

you know, common if you're going to win a war. But then what is, the media's was initially really critical of his domestic policies. And now that it's focused to international policies, I was just kind of wondering what you guys thought about when is the war coverage too much, when should we focus on our own problems rather than those related to the war? Well with all with all respect to your professor, framing is, is something we spend a lot of time in journalism talking about and worrying about, and the ways stories get framed, whether it's in print or broadcast or on on radio, is generally in the eye, or in the head, of the reporter. And he or she is trying to figure out a way to tell the story in the most compelling way. I, I have yet, well of course I don't know a lot of broadcast reporters but the reporters I know don't set out with the ambition that you, that you just described. They're

just trying to tell the story. In terms of, you know, one of the things that that's really hard to know, I come from a school of journalism, that's lower case s lower case j, where it's, you know you give, you give, your readers everything you can give them, and they'll decide what they want to read or what they don't want to read. And, and things have a natural lifespan. We tend to ride the horse, of whatever story we're on, until that horse is dead. In other words, we tend to, we tend to stay with stories too long. I don't feel like that's been the case with the war, although you're noticing, at least I'm noticing nationally, the papers are ratcheting back their coverage as things wind down, and that will lead to arguably the biggest story nationally in the coming months, and this is where the framing comes into it, is will Bush the younger repeat the mistakes of Bush the elder, in terms of not paying enough attention to domestic policy. You can see, Bush was at a

factory in, the president was in a factory in St. Louis today, making a speech on the economy, you know, trying to pump up support for the tax cut that's gone from 750 billion to 550 billion and will probably be three hundred billion or something like that. And in fact that shift is beginning to happen already, it seems to me. But that does not necessarily relieve the media of its obligation to be very thorough about trying to dissect some of these issues, because they they are arguably still very important. Go ahead. And it's an excellent question because, because if you just turn the question on its head now, now with the war's winding down, how much is too little? But what I'm really worried about is that we're not going to hold the Bush administration's feet to the fire on chemical weapons. What's going to happen is [applause] we're going to move on. The spinmeisters will begin, and you know what's going to really change it? The Democrats are going to start running for president, and they're going to start harping on it. And as weird as this sounds, when John Edwards and Howard Dean and all those other guys start

harping, it will not make the issue bigger, it will diminish it, because it will look like a political issue. It won't be a real issue anymore, and it'll just be this back and forth between 9-year-olds arguing over semantics. I'm serious. I'm really serious about this. And the embeds in Washington, those are the ones we should worry about, the ones who are there, those thousands of journalists who are never going to leave or say, well, we're moving on now to trade with North Korea. All right. That's the story, and that's what I'm really really worried about. Clearly you asked a really hot button issue up here because I'm going to have to go back and and maybe somewhat disagree with Peter, because as Gay Tutrin said, framing is, is defined by the fact that when journalists are looking in one direction, they do not see what is in the other direction. None of us can look in two directions simultaneously. And I would suggest that, as long as the journalists are looking out the government's window, they will be following

George Bush's agenda. And that I for one am not sure why the economy hasn't been an issue for the last months. I didn't know that the economy stopped being important because we were at war. But you know the war is over because Madonna and shark attacks are back on CNN. Hopefully in the same story. Absolutely. Last question, [applause] Last question, right here. Hi, my name is Beth Bollinger. I'm a lawyer from Spokane, so I guess I'm one of the ones who walked in off the street. I did start as a journalist. I was a reporter for the Wyoming Eagle, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and then went on to law school and ultimately, before I went to straight into litigation, I worked for the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C., that represents whistleblowers, people who blow the whistle on health and safety issues. And to answer, well, just to respond to that one question, or to, that I think that Brian is

right that sometimes people have to say things anonymously. And working with the results of people who speak up and speak the truth, because it's the right thing to do, people's lives can be destroyed by that kind of thing. And so being responsible in that regard is good. I came, much as I enjoyed the symposium, I came because of Danny Pearl, and I saw the article that said that he was going to be honored here. I have used him and his story as a beacon in my own work, and try to speak the truth, try to think from his perspective, you know, what would be the right step for me to do here? And, and I think that, that he's affected people around the world in that way because he stood for things. Unfortunately he had to die for the, for his word to become so well-known. But I

know I hold him as a beacon. And my question is, and I guess it'd be to Brian, if Danny were on this symposium tonight, what would he say, you know, don't forget, don't forget about this, what would it be, anything? Danny would be in Baghdad. Danny would be in Baghdad. That's where he would be if he was alive today. He'd be all over this story. What would Danny say? I don't know. When, but what particular question? Just, I just was, don't forget, don't forget about-- I'll tell you what, I um Danny was real but there was one particular story that uh. Remember we bombed that chemical weapons "factory" it was in was it in Iraq, right, or was it Iran? Sudan. or was it Iran? Sudan. Sudan, wherever it was. It was Danny was the only journalist who said that's bullshit. That wasn't a chemical, chemical weapons factory, and he did two or three stories about this. You know, you'd think that those, you know, maniacs who

killed him would see. But that he wasn't on their side. But at least he was listening. And um I'd be less worried, a little bit less worried about whether we'll pursue the chemical weapons story if he was here. Because he just didn't take anything at face value. Ed Murrow and I think Danny Pearl would have been Ed Murrow and I think Danny Pearl would have been very proud of the frank and spirited discussion that we've had here tonight. So let's give another round of applause. Thank you very much.