The Shotgun Blog
« Making political engagement easier | Main | Blogging for Food »
Monday, April 19, 2004
Objectivity in times of war
National Review's John Derbyshire congratulates his boss Rich Lowry on his appearance on The O'Reilly Factor and his "debate" with Clarence Page. More importantly, he makes an excellent point about the role of journalists in times of war:
"Loved Page's line about 'journalists should be asking a lot of questions about this war.' Oh, yeah; the older generation of lefty journalists want to create the glory days of 1968-75, when they brought down a President & lost us a war. The younger generation want to recreate it.
Is there any way we can EVER win ANY war with a leftist, anti-American journalistic establishment?"
While debating the ethics of war reporting on CTS's Behind the Story this past weekend I missed the opportunity to make the case for something I strongly believe, namely that the principle of journalistic objectivity -- and yes, I am aware that there is no such thing except the pretence of -- need not apply in times of war. The host asked how do we (journalists) avoid being either cheerleaders or unduly harsh critics; I think that journalists are citizens first, journalists second (or third, fourth, fifth) and that their duty is to their country first. If the war is right, there is nothing wrong with cheerleading. Yes, go with a sceptical eye, but be patriots, too. The partisanly critical journalist is, to put it frankly and provocatively, unpatriotic.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 19, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345e744d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Objectivity in times of war:
Comments
Reading the history of WWII, once the decision to go to war had been reached, no one was rooting for Hitler or asking much about the root causes of Nazism. Nor, after Pearl Harbour did any Timesman think to ask of the Japanese, "Why do they hate us."
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-04-19 11:08:37 PM
Hear, hear, Mr. Tuns! Journalists should be conscripted after the start of any war--declared or otherwise. Those that refuse should be deported. I am delighted to see that Mr. Tuns is one journalist honest enough to admit that his loyalty is not to the so-called "truth" but rather to the State--the source of all our blessings.
Posted by: Leon Robinson | 2004-04-20 12:40:17 AM
I caught that Paul, great job. And as a panelist on the same show, I've raised a similar point. One (muslim woman) journalist expressed her support for Al Jazeera's CRTC application because then we could "hear from the other side".
I responded that a) if we get Al Jazeera, I want FOX News and b) during WW2, did we get to listen to Japanese State Radio or watch German propaganda newsreels? More importantly, did we even WANT to? Of course not! We need to PICK sides in times like these, not "listen to both of them" (which inevitably means listening only to the one we agree with already).
Of course, she was baffled. But her viewpoint is shockingly common. One thing that blew me away and more firmly to the Right after 9/11 was that that very day, I read messages on career related newsgroups I belonged to, saying, "Now remember: we need to keep an open mind and consider both sides of the story!"
When I posted outraged messages in response, I got the typical sucky lefty answer: "Oh dear, I didn't mean to offend anyone" which is their way of trying to say, "Golly, I didn't actually think I'd ever encounter anyone who disagreed with Perceived Liberal Wisdom, and boy am I speechless."
Sorry to dump. But I just wish I could do something to support the war. The British had those wonderful x-rated propaganda units during WW2, dumping nasty drawings of Hitler and "the Huns" behind enemy lines. Where do I sign up? But no one would do such a thing today: too un-PC.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-04-20 8:34:45 AM
Cheers, Mr. Robinson! (Liked your previous comment, too: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/04/iraq_spun.html )
Mr. Tuns wrote:
"If the war is right, there is nothing wrong with cheerleading."
Of course, the logical corollary of this, is, if the war is wrong, there is nothing wrong with booing. Obviously, people, including journalists, will have differences of opinion on the matter of whether or not a given war is morally supportable (and yes, even on the Right, one may find dissenters, like me). In which case, why not accept that and celebrate it as a natural consequence of living in a free, open, democratic society? And hold that journalists ought to right as they please?
Of course, in wartime, one always hears things like, "Now is not the time for dissent; we must all get behind our leaders." But in a free society, it's *always* time for dissent - and IMO, in wartime it's most critical, *precisely because* lives are at stake (both civilian and military); if we are to be true to our heritage, as citizens of a free, democratic, open society, we must always have the freedom to openly disagree with one another, in any time. ("Or else the terrorists will have won!" as some might say...)
The other thing one hears is, "At least we can all agree that we support the troops." What the heck does this mean? Certainly no-one decent is hoping for ill to come to the troops, but really and truly, no, if one opposes the war, then one doesn't support the troops being there, and isn't cheering them on, even while not wishing them ill. This is merely another attempt to either force everyone into conformity, or render them voiceless, so that no dissent is expressed.
Some of have no intention of "picking sides"; our side is staying out altogether. If we're falsely painted as being on the opposing country / leader's side, oh well, that's life. Demonization is the first resort of those with few good arguments.
Patriotism and love of country doesn't equal support of the State, in all circumstances; in fact, sometimes it may require one, according to one's conscience, to oppose the State's actions. (Some of us are patriots first, and citizens second.)
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-04-21 8:19:57 PM
excuse me, that's "journalists ought to write as they please".
Posted by: Will S. | 2004-04-21 8:21:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.