Reason or treason? ‘Free speech has limits’

This must be Southern Old Media day here at New Media Musings. Besides the Richmond Times Dispatch, I’m also quoted in a thoughtful piece in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Reason or treason? Free speech has limits, advocates of war argue.

(Incidentally, I couldn’t find this story because the piece-o’-crap Access Atlanta site has no editorial search function that I could find. Instead, I used Google, limiting my search to this one site. )

The writer, Richard Halicks, and I exchanged a few emails on the subject of bias in news coverage of the war. I’m quoted at the end. The throwaway line that the United States tried to impose its world view in a wrongheaded war in Vietnam — don’t almost all historians agree on this by now? — has already drawn the wrath of several readers whose emails have burned a hole in my in-box this fine morning.

Here’s the full text of my comments to Richard:

This may be the first ‘red states’ war. The themes of supporting our troops and liberating Iraq plays well in the heartland, while those who live in the Electoral College ‘blue states’ seem to have greater doubts about the wisdom of the administration’s policy. Look at the massive street protests in San Francisco, New York and Boston.

The last time we fought an ideological war was in Vietnam. The Gulf War was fought to drive an invading army out of Kuwait; the war in Afghanistan was fought to eliminate al Qaeda’s home base. The Iraq war is being fought for reasons advanced by conservative hawks in the Bush administration: to rid the world of a dictator, yes, but also to extend American power in the Middle East. Ultimately, it’s about imposing our world view on a Third World country. The last time we tried that was in Vietnam.

Perhaps the only thing Americans can agree on with respect to the war is that we don’t want our news managed. As long as news correspondents’ reports from the field do not compromise the safety of our troops or ongoing military operations, we expect the news media to tell us the full truth of what’s taking place. The trouble is, whose truth? Viewers in all parts of the globe are getting a very different picture of the war’s progress than viewers here at home. News organizations without a horse in the race have decided to focus on civilian casualties and the unexpectedly strong resistance to the U.S.-led invasion by Iraqi citizens. American media, especially those traveling with U.S. combat troops, are emphasizing battlefield victories and the progress of the march on Baghdad.

In any military conflict, both sides have a media battle plan as well. We’re seeing spin from both sides. Iraqi news conferences play to the Arab street, focusing on the harsh realities of deaths and injuries inflicted on innocents. United States press briefings seem harsh and impersonal by comparison, run by generals whose track record of candor leaves much to be desired. Why they’re not focusing more on the reign of terror wrought by Saddam in recent years, I don’t know.

Certainly, I don’t blame the administration for trying to manage the media. After all, the war is not just about removing Saddam but instilling goodwill in the Iraqi people for their eventual liberation. Unfortunately, Saddam has managed Iraq’s media effectively, and fear speaks louder than hope.

I’m afraid I’m one of those whose skepticism meter is running in high gear. I’m skeptical whenever I see a news report about a purported factory where weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered. We know now that the Pentagon purposefully deceived the American public during the Gulf War to cover up the horrendous track record of Patriot missiles shot at Iraqi Scuds. With the administration hoping to prove to the world that the invasion was justified, it’s certainly not beyond the means of the U.S. government to manufacture a smoking gun. That probably won’t happen, but I’m not sure that we’ll find definitive proof one way or the other, and certainly whatever we do uncover will be doubted by hundreds of millions of people in Arab and Muslim regions.

Regarding news bias …

I worked at daily newspapers for 18 years and discovered that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Today, my local newspaper carried letters from readers complaining that the paper should be ashamed for printing news and photos that portrayed the war effort in less than glowing terms. There’s a sizable segment of the population that feels the same way: ‘Don’t bother me with the facts.’ Talk radio and right-wing Internet sites are teeming with people who share that mindset.

It’s up to journalists to stand up and do our jobs during these difficult times, regardless of pressure from the ideological extremes. It’s up to the news media to report what’s truly going on, without fear or favoritism. News organizations with ’embedded’ reporters have to make sure they’re reporting on the totality of the conflict, not merely the gung-ho reports on the troops they rub shoulders with.

A final word about dissent:

For those of us who remember the dissent and protests that roiled our country during Vietnam, the accusation that you can’t back the troops without backing the president is particularly painful. Dissent is the ultimate American value. Let’s not forget Teddy Roosevelt’s admonition:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

JD Lasica, founder of Inside Social Media, is also a fiction author and the co-founder of the cruise discovery engine Cruiseable. See his About page, contact JD or follow him on Twitter.