Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

In Covering War on Terrorism, Media Often Performing Delicate Balancing Act

Aired November 20, 2001 - 09:46   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: In covering the war on terrorism, we in the media often find ourselves performing a delicate balancing act, asking tough questions, and pursuing the public's right to know, while withholding information that could endanger U.S. soldiers or compromise security here at home.

Just recently, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said, "The more access there is, including the eyes and ears of the media, the better of we are." But many question if there is too much coverage if the media, or question the kind of coverage that is on the air.

Howard Kurtz reports on the media for "The Washington Post." He also is host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Welcome back. How are you doing, Howard?

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES": Great, Paula.

ZAHN: So let's talk a little bit more about what Victoria Clark said. We just lifted a small part of an excerpt of her comments. We know that atrocities on both sides were thoroughly reported over the last several weeks, atrocities committed by the Taliban, atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance. Are you seeing anybody out there arguing that that's a bad thing?

KURTZ: I certainly think journalists believe that they need to get out there and aggressively report what's happening on both sides, without any kind of white washing, but the truth is, that a majority of the public in wartime believes -- has very little use for freedom of the press.

Back during the Gulf War, for example, 60 percent in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) poll said there should be greater Pentagon censorship of the press, and so anything that is perceived by many Americans as being negative, as being overly aggressive or skeptical, doesn't get a lot of sympathy in this sort of "rally around the president" environment, and that's a difficult challenge, a difficult balancing act, as you put it, for journalists.

ZAHN: So, Howard, what kind of reaction do you think there was to that extremely graphic image of a Northern alliance soldier executing what was believed to be a Taliban soldier? You might remember the picture, fully surrounding him with -- given the poll statistics, was the general feeling by the American public was that you shouldn't print a picture like that, because those are the guys we back in the fight against terrorism?

KURTZ: Well, there is always the ongoing debate about how graphic should we be in time of war. Do we need to see the pictures of really heart-wrenching brutality. But you know, this notion that we shouldn't report these stories or show these images because the Northern Alliance are our guys, because they're part of the U.S. alliance, I don't have much sympathy for. I mean, it is not our function to simply be stenographers for the Pentagon and official United States point of view. War is a dirty, messy business, and also a dangerous business, as we saw in killing of the four journalists in Afghanistan yesterday.

We need to get out -- and we don't have much access, despite of what Victoria Clark says, to U.S. troops. A lot journalists are out there on their own or travelling with the Northern Alliance to try to show the often seamy, undecided war.

ZAHN: If you would, shed some light on some of the more specific criticism we hear by the American public of coverage. "the New York Times," for example, has been accused of providing -- quote -- "a blueprint and an invitation to terrorists for an op-ed piece that basically slammed the state of U.S. meat packing plants, and "The Hartford Current," out of Hartford, Connecticut received over 550 complaints from readers who objected to a photograph that was printed showing a baby that had allegedly been killed by the U.S. bombing campaign. Your reaction to those very specific criticisms? Start first with "The New York Times."

KURTZ: Well, a number of papers have printed stories about our nuclear plants, or meat-packing plants or water facilities, or sports stadiums adequately protected, and I think those are legitimate journalistic questions to ask. I think some of the stories have been too specific with maps and details, almost like giving an idea to those who might be inclined to mount some kind of terrorist attack.

And as far as civilian casualties, you know, I think we need to remind people, as CNN often does, that there were also a lot of civilian on September 11th, but I don't think we ought to airbrush the casualties that are taking place, and those are horrible pictures to look at, of kids, innocent Afghan kids, in some case, dying in war.

I think another important criticism is the undercurrent of negativity that has gone through a lot of the war coverage. This is a very embarrassing time for journalists, let's be perfectly blunt about it. For weeks, we had columnist, commentators, analyzers of all stripes, and some straight news reporters saying Afghanistan was another Vietnam, the White House was blowing it, this was going to drag on forever. And guess what, the Taliban collapsed pretty quickly. I think that some of those journalists now stand guilty of premature prognostication.

ZAHN: I think we need to make the distinction, those journalists are, particularly as you pointed out in the piece you did yesterday, are people who are paid to have an opinion. They are Not folks like you and me that are supposed to be here to going straight down the middle of the road.

KURTZ: Not entirely. There was a front-page story in "USA Today" that said military experts have concluded we are facing a quagmire. There was a news analysis by Johnny Apple, a "New York Times" reporter, using the 'q' word, quagmire. So it wasn't only the columnists, and look, nobody knew what was going to happen in this war. I was surprise that the Taliban was routed as dramatically as they were, but the point is, that's why those kinds of stories can be dangerous, because there are just three, four, five weeks in a war.

ZAHN: One of the points that Bob Steel made, who is the director of ethics program at the Poynter Institute, and this is along the lines you were discussion earlier about this delicate balancing act that journalists are watching.

"There is an ethical obligation to make sure you are withholding certain information that could, if not revealed or released to authorities, cause great harm to others." Do you agree?

KURTZ: I do agree. Journalists are united in saying we should not report anything that would jeopardize the safety of American troops, but at the same time holding back information about raids that did not go well, weapons that did not go well, that is also important information to have, even if it makes unpopular as the bearers sometimes of bad news.

ZAHN: And how are were we on the anthrax meter these days, Howard? The last time you came on, you beat us all up about putting too much anthrax coverage on the air. Now that the story has died down, do you think the portion of the stories is more...

KURTZ: Yes, I think the anthrax coverage right now is pretty good. It's a little less alarmist than it had been. Obviously, there have been fewer attacks.

I think we're all, government officials, experts, journalists, starting to be able to process that difficult anthrax story. There was a time to me it seemed the media, inadvertently, and I don't accuse you of this, Paula, were contributing to scaring people. I think that period has now passed.

ZAHN: Well, as you and I both know, there can be a pack mentality when these stories are covered.

Thank you, Howard. Howard Kurtz, Have a good holiday if I don't see you before Thursday.

KURTZ: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com