|
Home of the World's Most Influential Journalists
|
|
|
Search for a Profile:
A
B C D E
F G
H I
Blogging NewsBios
Julia Boorstin
- CNBC
Time's Alice Park - Health Journalist of the Month FT's Andrew Jack Has the Scoop on Sanofi-Aventis
Health Journalism Today * Dozens of additional health.newsbios also available. Call for details.
Buy Cool Stuff! |
ăHedgeä Hogs and Oxymoron's In IraqBy Dean Rotbart
Leading the news were unconfirmed
reports that the United States may have killed Saddam Hussein and his two sons
in an alleged attack on a residential building where the dictator was supposedly
spotted entering, but where it isnât clear if he remained inside or escaped
through the labyrinth of underground bunkers and tunnels that are said to exist
throughout Iraq. Of course, I wasnât able to view
every minute of coverage on every news channel, but reliable sources tell me
that there is a great likelihood that what I did witness was typical of coverage
throughout the night. Perhaps
Iâll learn more at the next Centcom briefing, which rumor has it will take
place soon. Please note, as CNN.com does at the
bottom of its web stories, that my column is ăwritten in accordance with
Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which
journalists join deployed troops. Among
the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not
to disclose sensitive operational details.ä Am I the only one who it strikes as
ironic that the American news media and war correspondents are willing to face
the prospects of chemical weapons, suicide bombers, rocket-propelled grenades,
land mines, small arms fire, heat, exhaustion and camelâs breath, yet they
donât have the backbone to risk directly reporting that ăSaddam Hussein and
his two sons may have been killed in a U.S. assault this afternoon.ä All this journalistic hedging is not
only overkill, it is chicken manure. In an effort to cover their exposed hinnies, the broadcast
and cable networks are engaging in pussyfoot acrobatics and word gymnastics that
would awe even the most accomplished contortionist. My guess is that the networks are still smarting from the
election night debacle in November 2000 when they declared Al Gore the next
Commander in Chief, then thought better of it as the evening wore on. But there is a world of difference
between covering hanging shads in Florida and falling scuds in Iraq.
In the first instance, the media had an obligation to hold their tongues
until they knew for certain of what they spoke.
In the case of war coverage, journalists must report the facts as they
appear to be at any given moment and give the viewers credit for understanding
that accuracy takes on a whole different meaning when shrouded in the fog of
war. As we have learned from past wars,
even ăconfirmedä reports from the field are later revised and often
reversed. During the first Gulf
War, the patriot missiles worked great. Right? Covering
chaos should not be a neat nor safe business.
Our soldiers lay it all on the line, including life and limb, trying to
achieve their goals. The
journalists, and their network executives, must be willing to do no less when
it comes to their carefully crafted reputations.
In wartime, accurate reporting is an oxymoron.
April 8, 2003
|
|
POWERED BY:
You, Here, Now! Guest Column Archives Newsroom Confidential Archives
|
