The Duty of Journalists to their Country - Essay Example

The Duty of Journalists to their Country Recently the controversy over the duty of journalists to our country has gained momentum. This controversy is based on whether the higher duty of journalists in reporting information about the enemy in war is to their country or to their profession. The United States of America has declared a war on terrorism and in Afghanistan and Iraq, a war against terrorism which is overt. It is against this backdrop that this controversy has emerged. There are bitter arguments between the proponents of the view that the higher duty of journalists lies with their country, and the view of the opponents, who claim that the first duty of journalists lies with their profession, even during times of war. It is my view that the higher duty of the journalists, in reporting information about the enemy during times of war, is to this country, not to their profession. First, there must be an agreement that the United States of America is in a state of war, and that it is a just war against terrorism in all parts of the world, with special emphasis in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. These areas have terrorists who are entrenched and committed in their plans for expansion of terrorism around the world. This is a just war, as the terrorists first attacked America on September 11, 2001. The UN Charter recognizes the right of self-defense, and this is enshrined in Article 51, which states “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”. The declaration of this war has also followed the constitutional norms of the United States of America. The Powers Resolution of 1973 has specifically recognized the authority of the President to use military force in the case of “a national emergency created by the attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”. It also stipulates that this use of force must be done in consultation with the Congress. The President declared the war on terrorism, after an attack on American soil, in consultation with the Congress. There can be no argument then that the United States of America is in a state of war, and that it is a just war according to the citizens of the world. This state of war has wide implications on the rights and duties of the citizens of America, which include the American journalists who are citizens first and journalists second. (Ackerman, M. David. 2001. Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspects of the Use of Military Force). During wartime, the concentration of effort of the citizens of the country is directed towards the objective to win the war with the fewest number of lives lost. To create this effort and maintain it, especially when the course of the war is likely to be an extended one, calls for a supportive public opinion. With advanced developments in communications technology the dissemination of news is faster and is more vivid than ever before. The role of journalism during wartime has become even more relevant, as it has a very significant role to play in the creation of supportive public opinion towards the war effort. The support of the nation is justified and necessary. The clarity with which Abraham Lincoln visualized the importance of public opinion is heard in his words, “Public opinion is everything. With it nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed.” The war in Vietnam was lost due, in part, to irresponsible journalism that led to tipping public opinion against the war effort. Journalistic reports concentrated heavily on the atrocities of the war rather than focusing on the efforts of the American military in horrific circumstances. This can easily happen in a war on terrorism. To avoid it, journalists, as citizens of the country, are duty bound to see that their reports do not cause public opinion to waiver and become a liability allowing the enemy to benefit rather than the nation and its citizens. (Hali, M. S. THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN WAR). CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan, during an international conference, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 27, 2005, suggested that American soldiers were killing journalists in Iraq. This misguided statement had the effect on public opinion and of hurting the American war effort in Iraq. This misuse of a journalist’s personal view of his professional duty was made at the cost of his nation’s war effort. His apologies, after the fact, for this misguided remark had little impact on the damage his words caused. The result was his resignation, bowing in acceptance of the need for the higher sense of duty to the nation than to professional duty at a time of war. (Kurtz, H. 2005. CNN's Jordan Resigns Over Iraq Remarks). The war on terrorism is a unique war because the combatants are not easily identifiable and remain elusive. The United States of America is not at war with the governments of these countries, or with the people of these countries, but against certain elements within the communities of these countries. These elements act as a plague on the peace and harmony of the world. This makes for an extremely difficult mission for the armed forces of the United States of America, who have the means to thwart the enemy, and need to know when and where the threat lies. The power of the American military services cannot be used indiscriminately or used to kill innocent victims. The destruction of the peaceful population of these countries is not the aim of this war, for they are not the enemy. The enemy hides among them or in the country, and prying them out is not an easy task. The worldwide exposure of any unplanned harm to the civilian population has made this task even more difficult for the men in uniform who are fighting these battles. Information is an important weapon in wartime. Information on the location of terrorists or their armory can lead to a specific military solution, without causing civilian casualties or at the very least, minimizing that risk. In addition, information of the terrorist plans can prevent casualties within the ranks of the American military services. The journalists have access to information through their contacts within the enemy ranks, electronic eaves dropping and clandestine visits to the battlefields. This provides them with information that other resources can not provide. In the name of higher duty to their profession than to the nation, some journalists have indicated that they would remain silent on the information received. During an edition of the PBS panel series “Ethics in America”, devoted to coverage of war in 1987 and taped at Harvard, Journalist Mike Wallace of “60 minutes” fame clearly stated that were he to be present with enemy soldiers he would not give warning to American soldiers on an impeding ambush. The concern is withholding this information in the name of a higher duty to their profession could lead to the casualties among soldiers of their own country. (CANNOT FIND INSTANCES OF ACTUAL HAPPENING SO HAVE CHANGED TO THE PROBABLWE PROBLEM) ***need a specific example of this happening. They show no qualms in reporting and showing the actual pictures of beheading of innocent civilians, which only goes to aid the enemy effort but providing information that could save lives of their own soldiers is against their professional. What warped ethics is this? Is journalistic professionalism more important than the lives American soldiers? What higher duty calls for suppression of information by journalists which results in the death of their fellow Americans in uniform? Don’t the American soldiers who defend our country need to have the highest regard from their journalistic colleagues? Journalists claim that they would not inform American forces of the possibility of ambushes, because their first duty lies in their profession, and their ethical standard of reporting facts first. The nation comes second. The concept of their duty to the nation being primary and all else secondary appears baffling to these journalists. One of the more controversial remarks made by a journalist was the one in which Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, made during a 1987 PBS panel on Ethics in America which was devoted to war coverage. The panel moderator asked Wallace what he would do if, while traveling with enemy combatants, he learned of an impending ambush planned by enemy soldiers against our troops. He was specifically asked if he did not believe that he had a higher duty as an American citizen to do all he could to save the lives of soldiers. His response was a shock to the nation, “No, you don’t have a higher duty…you’re a reporter.” Brent Scowcroft argued that, “you’re Americans first, and you’re journalists second.” Wallace seemed astounded that anyone would question a journalists’ to right photograph an attack by enemy soldiers, one which could have been avoided had he given the information to our troops. It is rumored that Wallace will be retiring soon. Those who are sacrificing their lives to protect this country may be happy that is the case. (Baker, B. 2006. Mike Wallace: Journalist First, American Second). The military and the media are two segments of the country, each with a different function in the interest of the society. The military defends our country. The image of the military is a significant factor both within the country, and outside it, in its ability to function effectively. The media has the means and moral duty to do everything within its power to put the lives of the Americans first. Questioning authority is essential during times of peace, for it brings out inadequacies in the administration, and makes way for improvement in how it functions, which is for the good of its citizens. The military comes to prominence only during periods of war, and denigrating the military in wartime gives a substantial advantage to the enemy. The role of journalists in the Vietnam War has left bitter memories within the military and in the country as a whole. Journalists turned their backs on the perspective of patriotism first and professionalism second, leading to a drop in the morale of the enlisted men and officers, the confidence of the nation, and contributed to the unsatisfactory outcome of the war effort. ***I could not quite understand this. Is there something I’m missing in its meaning or is there a way to word it more clearly? (CHANGED). In all sections of society there are elements that bring disrepute. This is true of all military establishments, not just the American army. In every section of society there are a few elements that bring no joy. To tarnish the image the military services as a whole is not reporting the truth and it also ignores the brave sacrifices that the military makes in the defense of the nation. In every section of society, elements bring about discomfort. (Hali, M. S. THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN WAR). Errors on the battlefield have occurred since man first waged war. A classic example is the charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. The military blunder has long been forgotten, and what lingers is the memory of the bravery of the men who charged to their deaths. Glorifying the bravery of men, rather than the blunders that take innocent lives provides reason to remember the men who gave up their lives, and provides strength to the armed forces of the country. This blunder of the British in no way diminished the image of the British army. The role played by journalists during the Second World War that brought fame to the Allies is an example of journalism that put patriotism first, and professionalism second. They proudly wore military uniforms and followed the censorship norms that were in place. That war was won despite the many years and lives it took, providing strength to the nation. The journalists of today pale in comparison, for they are quite likely to argue about the ethics of even wearing an American flag. To the enemy wearing even a small American flag would not look right. (CHANGED SARCASTIC COMMENT ON THEIR PATRIOTISM) That would not look right to the enemies of the nation! If this is not an exact quote can it be phrased differently? **** (Goldberg, J. 2004. Patriotism &the Press). **** A primary argument made by journalists that they need not consider their duty to their country first, is that the ethics of journalism require that they report facts, as they perceive them. Providing the facts of the situation, even during times of war, is dictated by the ethics of their profession. The truth may be beneficial to the enemy, but that is incidental and not the concern of journalism. (CHANGED). *****In the event, the truth is beneficial to the enemy it is not because they are doing wrong, and that lie elsewhere. ***** I just do not quite understand this…. It is their duty to disclose the facts they learn. To journalists this means interacting with the enemy and refusing to disclose this information in order to maintain their sources on the side of the enemy. It is journalism first and patriotism second in their eyes. (Baker, B. 2006. Mike Wallace: Journalist First, American Second). There is no doubt that seeking the truth is a moral virtue and should, of course, be maintained by journalists. The practice of balanced reporting suggests that there are two sides to every situation. Journalists interview serial killers, and yet they do not try to justify the demented actions or reasons which the serial killers have for the murders committed. In the event seeking the truth is the one most revered ethic of journalism, it is missing in such situations. This reflects opportunism rather than seeking the truth. There is no commercial value in the justifications of a serial killer, and so there is no need to report it. At the same time, there is commercial value in the views and justification of Osama bin Laden and his supporters, however deranged it may be. Seeking it and publishing it in the name of truth is acceptable in the eyes of ethics of journalism - a repugnant practice. I changed the wording of this …need to look to see if I kept the same idea as what my source said. (NOT AN ISSUE, AS EVEN I HAVE ONLY USED THE SERIAL KILLER PART FROM KULMAN THE REST IS MINE. I DON’T THINK ALL THE IDEAS NEED BE REFERENCED. THE BASIS IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. SO GO AHEAD AND USE IT. IT SOUNDS AND FEELS GOOD. ) (Kulman, L. Newman, J.R. and Mazzetti, M. 2001. COVERING ALL BASES). Journalists can and do lie for their own benefit. Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who was responsible for the spread of the fallacy of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction). The front page article in the Times of Judith Miller, on April 21, 2003 “Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said To Assert”, (PROVIDED). Need the date of when this happened and a quote by her or a more specific statement of what she did or said…. is a recent example of this. (Herman, S.E.2005. The New York Times Versus Civil Society). Journalists can lie for their own benefit, using the excuse that they are journalists first, citizens second. Is it too much to ask them to refrain from journalistic acts that are a detriment to the nation and an advantage to the enemy? This country is far more important than any commercial advantage or personal benefit an individual can gain. Don’t journalists need to be patriots first and journalists second? (Baker, S. 2005. The Sins of Judith Miller). Another argument of journalists is that they are free to access events that happen anywhere, even in the theatres of war, and that they cannot be subjected to any form of censorship in the pursuits of their journalistic profession. They believe this right is derived from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and their duties to the citizens of America in their role as watchdogs. This contention of journalists was put to the test in the Nation case during the Gulf War. While the court accepted the case, it refused to give injunctive and declarative relief in favor of the cause of the journalists. The Gulf War ended before the decision of the case, and the court in its final ruling chose to refer it to the Supreme Court for future reference. This makes it clear that even the judiciary is not certain of the validity of these claims, pertaining to the ethics of journalism, even when issues of breach in Constitutional rights are claimed. In such an event, the only precedence that can be taken into account is the cases in the history of journalism. There are limits to the freedom journalists are allowed in pursuit of their profession. The ethics of journalists are in no way different from other citizens, and they should be morally bound to put their patriotic duty ahead of their professional duty. (Cooper, D.S. 2003. Press Controls in Wartime: The Legal, Historical, and Institutional Context). Conclusion: The nation is at war with terrorism, and the journalist’s claims of professional ethics taking precedence over patriotism are not substantiated. They are not special citizens. They have the same duties and moral and ethical standards to uphold as do other citrizens in this country. They should be expected to make contributions to the war effort to bring it to a successful culmination, or at the very least to report facts and to give information to the troops which may save lives of both Americans and the enemy. Simply changing public opinion is not an act of patriotism. Maintaining public opinion towards the war effort, as long as the war is ongoing is critical, if for no other reason than to prevent the loss of life. Contributing to the enemy effort is immoral. Providing information about enemy activities is morally and ethically the higher duty to which they are called. Works Cited 1. Ackerman, M. David. 2001. “Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspects of the Use of Military Force”. CRS Report for Congress. 2001. 20 March 2006. . 2. Baker, B. “Mike Wallace: Journalist First, American Second”. NewsBusters. March 16, 2006. 20 March 2006. . 3. Baker, S. “The Sins of Judith Miller”. AlterNet. June 24, 2005. 20 March 2006. ,http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22301/. 4. Cooper, D.S. “Press Controls in Wartime: The Legal, Historical, and Institutional Context”. American Communication Journal. 2003. Vol. 6, Issue 4. 20 March 2006. . 5. Goldberg, J. “Patriotism &the Press”. May 28, 2004. 20 March 2006. . 6. Hali, M. S. “THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN WAR”. 20 March 2006. 7. Herman, S.E. “The New York Times Versus Civil Society”. Z magazine. THIRD WORLD TRAVELLER. 2005. 20 March 2006. . 8. Kulman, L. Newman, J.R. and Mazzetti, M. “COVERING ALL BASES”. News & World Report. November 19, 2001. Vol. 131. Issue 21. Pp 44-45. 9. Kurtz, H. “CNN's Jordan Resigns Over Iraq Remarks”. The Washington Post. February 12, 2005. Page A01. GUIDELINES TO SITES Reference No. 1. Open Google. Give search term - Ackerman, M. David. 2001. “Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspects of the Use of Military Force”. The first option given itself gives you the site. Reference No 2 Open Google. Give search term – Baker, B. “Mike Wallace: Journalist First, American Second”. NewsBusters. The first option itself gives you the site. Reference No.3 Open Google. Give search term – Baker, S. “The Sins of Judith Miller”. AlterNet. June 24, 2005. The second option gives you the site. Reference No.4 Open Internet. Give the site address I have given you it will open the site. . Reference No.5 Open Google. Give search term – Goldberg, J. “Patriotism & the Press”. The second option gives you the site. Reference No. 6 Already sent to you. Reference No. 7. Open Internet. Give the site address I have given you it will open the site. . Reference No.8 Journal from library – If it is really required can try and look for a site that gives you it. Reference No.9. Open Google. Give search term - Kurtz, H. “CNN's Jordan Resigns Over Iraq Remarks”. The Washington Post. The first option itself gives you the site. Read More