Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Sunday

Guests Discuss Role of Journalism in War Against Terrorism

Aired November 04, 2001 - 15:04   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.
DONNA KELLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Washington's campaign against terror has been making headlines around the world certainly since September 11th, but most of what the world has been seeing and hearing about the conflict is taking place far from the actual front lines. That poses certainly a special challenge for the journalists trying to cover the story.

We have two distinguished guests joining us for some international perspective on the issue. Adrian Wooldridge writes for "The Economist" about the current war, as well as politics in the United States and elsewhere.

And in London, Robin Oakley, CNN's European political editor, who recently wrote on the difficulty of covering the war in an article for "The Times of London."

I might mention that Robin is outside 10 Downing Street because he's covering a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is having there with European leaders to talk about the war on terrorism.

Robin, war time has always been tough for correspondents to cover. What's so different about it this go-around?

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN'S EUROPEAN POLITICAL EDITOR: Well, I think the particular difficulty this time round is that the journalists are getting much less access given to them by the participants in the military campaign compared, for example, with the Gulf War or with Kosovo when there was a lot more access to both sides.

Now, it's true that the Taliban, who have been anti-television, as it were, and virtually attempted to ban the medium of television in the parts of Afghanistan they control, have learned, in the course of this campaign, the value of television, and have started to invite in selected groups of journalists to see selected sites.

But it is certainly true that it has been very difficult for a lot of correspondents in this war because they are based far from the action, and they are having to rely on pictures and information that are relayed to them. There is not that direct access that we have seen in many previous campaigns -- Donna.

KELLEY: Adrian, when we have so much TV and 24-hour news TV and access around the world, is a tighter hold on that information understandable so that that information doesn't get into the enemy's hands?

ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE, "THE ECONOMIST": I think it's absolutely understandable. But another of the problems that we have here is that America is fighting a war on two fronts, the front in Afghanistan and the domestic front. And the domestic front tends to dominate a lot of the news coverage here, partly because journalists, themselves, are a victim of anthrax attacks, and partly because we just know a great deal more about it. So I think that skews a lot of what's being said on the media as well.

KELLEY: Robin, what about the worldwide audience? You are playing to an enormously diverse audience. You don't just have the folks at home that you have to rally, you have to get a lot of folks around the world on board.

OAKLEY: I think, Donna, that is a problem very much one for the politicians. It's a problem for the journalists, too, but given that this is a war in which the propaganda war is as important as the military action, it is enormously difficult for those in the west, for America, Britain, the European allies, who are attempting to put together and keep together this anti-terrorist coalition to make their case to people of diverse languages and cultures and religions and traditions worldwide.

And there's been a tremendous focus in this war in trying to persuade the Muslim community worldwide that the bombing, being undertaken by the anti-terrorist coalition is right, but it is a hugely difficult task, essentially, in persuading, say, a Muslim community in Indonesia that it can be right for the richest and strongest military power in the world, the United States, to be bombing Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world.

Journalists are bound to reflect that difficulty, to some degree, in their reporting. But it's essentially a difficulty for the spin doctors and for the politicians in trying to make their case, which is there, complicating the task of the journalists -- Donna.

KELLEY: Robin, when you're trying to get some information, what do you see as the toughest for you, trying to get information in Europe, or things that you see could be done differently? Do you think more information could be given out?

OAKLEY: I think more information could and should be given out if the allies are to achieve their purpose. We've had here in Britain, for example, we've had many fewer briefings and press conferences held by the Ministry of Defense on this occasion than we had, for example, during the Gulf War.

I think, partly because of their sensitivity to the propaganda war, the politicians are, on this occasion, holding back. They're not really trusting the people to quite the same degree that we have seen in some other recent conflicts, and that certainly makes life harder for the journalist. We're operating on guesswork a large amount of the time.

Of course, we don't expect them to tell us the imminent details of a particular military operation. We don't expect to be given the precise moment at which any ground troops offensive will begin in Afghanistan. But I think not enough information is being passed through, and the public are not really being taken into the confidence of the politicians in the governments as yet -- Donna.

KELLEY: Adrian, during the Gulf War, we called it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) diplomacy, when we would see this back and forth between world leaders. Do you see evidence of that as much as this go around, and would you agree with Robin that maybe more information could be given out?

WOOLDRIDGE: Well, I think there's a lot of back and forth between world leaders. Tony Blair is coming to Washington this Wednesday as part of a whole series of, really, a marathon diplomacy on his part.

But, yes, I think that the administration, the government needs to trust the people more, they need to give out much more information on the military front as well as other fronts.

But, more important than that, they need to be snicker. You have Tony Blair, who is one of the great spin doctors of all time, you have a fairly slick operation on the domestic front here, but they just haven't seemed to have got their act together on very, very simple, basic lines of being able to respond immediately to accusations by the Taliban which are false or wrong or misleading.

So they just need to -- they need to become professional. They've got lots of professionals in their armory, they're just not using them. They need to get their act together pretty quickly.

KELLEY: And they've tried to counter that a little bit more now with this new 24-hour office...

WOOLDRIDGE: Exactly.

KELLEY: ... that -- yeah, that the administration is putting together.

Robin, what about that? That's kind of an interesting way that Adrian puts that. The need to be a little slicker and a little bit better, a slick operation in getting the word out. You're covering that meeting tonight with the key European leaders. Do you think they'll have a chance to talk about getting the word out?

OAKLEY: I think it's a typical example that we're going to see tonight, because we're being told that there will be no press conference after these leaders have met, that we'll be lucky if any of them amble across to the microphones assembled here in Downing Street and give us any thoughts about what has gone on here tonight.

And it's interesting that some of the politicians in Europe have started rather to attack the media almost for being unpatriotic.

Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, has attacked the whole concept of 24-hour news, and said that it makes it very difficult for countries to maintain and sustain an operation, which they admit is going to have to be a long haul, because 24-hour news excites an appetite in the public for quick results.

We, in the media, are always saying, what's happening next; what are you going to do next; why hasn't this worked already. And the politicians are certainly feeling greater pressure, I think, with many more 24-hour news stations available to the public these days, really keeping people informed pretty well up-to-date, and putting an extra pressure on the politicians.

Wherever they are in the world, they're having to learn to play a kind of game of electronic chess, that information is bounced rapidly about in modern communications, and one call on a mobile phone from somewhere out in the Middle East, and a politician has got to pronounce immediately on the doorstep in Downing Street.

They're finding that something of a strain, and they're beginning to react against it and blame the media for it -- Donna.

KELLEY: Very true, 24-hour news, we'll finished this show and we're on to the next one.

Robin Oakley, thanks very much, who is our European political editor at CNN; and also, Adrian Wooldridge, who is with "The Economist."

Great to have you both here with us, thanks.

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