Middle Ground

Author: Fahim Ahmed

It is during times of grave crises that a nation's resolve towards defending the rights and liberties of its people is tested. It is also during these times that the strengths of institutions that define the society as one that is free and democratic are put into trial. During the course of history, the American press has stood out as one such institution that represented and inspired freedom in the nation, and across the world. And the commitment to that ideal of freedom has been best served by the American press, not by an acquiescent stance on the administration's position on issues of relevance, but rather through upholding the canons of responsible journalism. It is, therefore, painful to observe that the American press, at this time of grave national crisis, chooses to play a role of subservience rather than one of conscience.
The coverage of the impending war on Iraq in leading news networks including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC demonstrates this disturbing trend. The ideological stance taken by these networks that favor implicit support of the Bush administration's stance on Iraq, over a more balanced approach that incorporates the diverse viewpoints that characterize the deep divisions within our society on the question of Iraq, runs counter to the expectations from a free press. Further, the biased reporting, unequal coverage and the sheer distortion of facts and information leads us to ponder the role of the press in our society.
The distortion begins at the very outset of the coverage of the war on Iraq.
Fox News Network, increasingly popular and competitively positioned against industry leader CNN, begins the misinformation by branding its coverage of Iraq as the 'War on Terror'. Evidently, this attempt to establish a link, in the minds of the millions in its audience, between the attacks of Sept. 11 and the global war on terrorism that ensued, with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- a nexus that the Bush administration and intelligence sources have thus far failed to establish.
While recent polls demonstrate that the nation remains evenly split on the question of preemptive military action without the support of the U.N., the leading news networks have failed to allocate proportionate airtime to both sides in the debate. CNN's coverage of anti-war protest rallies in Washington, D.C., on International Women's Day was limited, whereas that of Fox News was almost negligible. In fact, Fox News devoted significantly greater airtime to the coverage of sparsely attended pro-war rallies, and rallies that opposed Turkey's position against U.S. troops in its territories.
Further, the channel continues to pander to pro-war sentiments showcasing a boycott of French wine, re-branding of French fries as 'Freedom fries', and even promoting a pro-war music album of an obscure country-western singer.
The virulent anti-French position taken by the network has also involved a speculation on ulterior financial motives in France's opposition to a war on Iraq, whereas it failed to address any possible financial motives in the United States' push for a war, lest that be perceived as unpatriotic.
The ideological slant of Fox News seeps deeper beyond its conservative talk shows, such as the O'Reilly Factor, and permeates into its news reports and commentaries. Responding to a New York Times op-ed piece by former U.S. President and Nobel Peace laureate Jimmy Carter ("Just War - or a Just War", New York Times, March 9, 2003), a Fox news-anchor went so far as to insinuate that President Carter's position was inappropriate, divisive and unpatriotic. In so doing, Fox News attacks the very spirit of the First Amendment that it is expected to uphold.
Regrettably, Fox News is not the only news network that has failed to live up to the high expectations. MSNBC, the third largest news network, in an effort to avoid being seen as 'unpatriotic' or 'liberal,' pulled its highest-rated program -- a talk show hosted by Phil Donahue. During the same week it hired the conservative Dick Armey, former Republican House Leader, as a commentator.
At this critical juncture of the nation, the press has a clear and distinct choice to make. It can either choose the path of subservience, or it can choose the path of conscience. Unfortunately, it seems unclear that it is making the correct choice.