Limited Access to Conflict Leaves Media Frustrated

The United States is at war, but about all the American people know so far about the faraway conflict has come from two almost equally inscrutable sources: Pentagon briefings that are, by design, short on specifics, and grainy, nighttime television pictures that, of necessity, look like the final stages of a small-town fireworks show.

“Nearly three days into this operation, we--and therefore the American public--really have no idea how it’s going, what’s being done in our name and what effect it’s having,” said Paul Friedman, executive vice president at ABC News. “That may be unavoidable at this stage,” he said, given legitimate concerns about the safety of troops and journalists, and the logistical difficulties encountered by both. But relatively soon, probably in a couple of days, Friedman said, “we will have to start shouting [to the Pentagon], ‘Can we see the evidence?’ ”

Reporters are beginning to interview eyewitnesses to the bombings who are fleeing Taliban-held portions of Afghanistan, but “we’d like to be able to start matching up what’s being said here with what’s happening on the ground there,” said Philip Bennett, assistant managing editor for foreign news at the Washington Post. “It’s a frustrating exercise at this point. We haven’t seen any of the damage firsthand and, in Washington, we haven’t been able to find out if our goals or policies are shifting as the action unfolds.”

Although other journalists, in print and broadcast news organizations alike, share Friedman’s and Bennett’s frustrations, most also share their feelings that, under the circumstances, it is premature to complain about a lack of access or information.

In fact, Sandy Johnson, Washington bureau chief for Associated Press, said she thinks the Pentagon has begun to release some details that it would not have given out two weeks ago. “On Sunday, they told us how many planes were in the air and how many cruise missiles there were.”

Seeking Agreement on Principles

Dan Klaidman, Washington bureau chief for Newsweek, echoed many of his colleagues when he said, “We want to watch this evolve before we begin making strong judgments about the kind of access we can get. It’s a good start that the Pentagon has at least embedded some reporters on the aircraft carriers [from which cruise missiles and long-range bombers have been launched], but the real test is whether they’ll allow reporters with the air units and with the ground units when they go in, and we haven’t gotten firm commitments on that yet.”

Klaidman and Washington bureau chiefs for other major news organizations are scheduled to have a conference call today with Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke and her top aides as part of their continuing effort to win such commitments.

They are seeking assurance from Clarke that her boss, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, will embrace and implement the nine principles for combat news coverage agreed to by his predecessors--including now-Vice President Dick Cheney--that were formulated by representatives of the Pentagon and the press after the Persian Gulf War.

“We’ve been told that Rumsfeld has had the list of principles for two weeks but hasn’t signed off on them yet,” said Clark Hoyt, Washington editor for Knight Ridder, who was on the steering committee that helped create the combat coverage guidelines. “We expect him to do so.”

The first of these principles says, “Open and independent reporting will be the principal means of coverage of U.S. military operations.” Another says, “Journalists will be provided access to all major military units.”

But journalists “have to be realistic about the nature of the conflict we’re in,” said Newsweek’s Klaidman. “I don’t think we’re holding our breath to be embedded in special forces [commando] operations. We can huff and puff about access, but this is a war that will be fought . . . in shadows, requiring a degree of secrecy we haven’t seen in previous conflicts.”

In the Gulf War, polls showed the public thought by a 2-1 margin that censorship for the sake of national security was more important than allowing the media to report important news.

Indeed, Erik Sorenson, president of MSNBC, said the network has received about 100 e-mails a day from viewers “very concerned about security issues,” and especially concerned that the media are broadcasting too much information that could be useful to the enemy.

A CBS News survey released Tuesday said 27% of the American public thinks the news media are providing too much information on the attacks in Afghanistan.

To mitigate the criticisms, MSNBC--like the other networks--tries to make clear to viewers that certain seemingly sensitive information has been confirmed by the Pentagon.

Newspaper ombudsmen, whose responsibility it is to respond to reader comments and criticisms about their papers, say readers have lodged similar complaints. Many readers have suggested that when the media run such information, they should explain that it has either been authorized by the Pentagon or is widely available on the Internet or elsewhere.

As the war continues, though, the media will almost certainly seek, find, publish and broadcast information that is neither available elsewhere nor authorized by the Pentagon, and some media observers say that may trigger public criticism.

“The country is swept up in the patriotism of the moment,” said Robert Giles, curator of the Neiman program for journalism fellowships at Harvard University, “and for journalists, that will raise the question of whether there is room for a probing press that’s going to look hard at this exercise of power--and at its results.”

A survey conducted last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 85% of the American public rated media coverage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath excellent or good. But in the 25 years leading up to this recent surge of approval, the media have faced steadily declining public confidence. Most news executives recognize that if the media do their job well in times of conflict and crisis, they will often be unpopular.

Dangerous Conditions, Difficult Logistics

In covering this conflict in particular, these executives say, their reporters and photographers face obstacles far more worrisome than unpopularity.

Unlike the Gulf War, when CNN journalists in Baghdad were escorted by the Iraqis (and American bombers tried to steer clear of the hotel where U.S. journalists were quartered), “There is no safe haven in Afghanistan,” Sorenson said. “The Taliban told us, when asked, ‘If you come, we’ll kill you.’ ”

Just Tuesday, NBC correspondent Kerry Sanders was on a rooftop in northern Afghanistan with Northern Alliance rebels, getting ready to go on the air for MSNBC, when they heard shots. Sanders hunkered down and went ahead with his report, his face suddenly turned eerily green by the night-scope equipment on the camera.

He finished his report several minutes later--standing up, safely--but his experience was a clear reminder of the risks faced by correspondents attempting to cover this conflict.

“Even with the friendly forces in the Northern Alliance, there is risk,” Sorenson said. “These are tribal factions, loosely organized, and it’s a terribly hostile situation.”

It is also difficult logistically. Most major news organizations have reporters and photographers in central Asia now--some of them in Pakistan or other neighboring countries, others in northern Afghanistan--and just getting the necessary visas for them, trying to stay in touch with them and keeping them moving across remote, rugged terrain to ever-shifting objectives is an enormous and growing challenge.

For television, so dependent on pictures, the challenge of a war at night is even greater.

“You’re basically sitting on the live shot [from cameras filming the attacks], praying you get to see the little white tracers, and then you edit highlights of it, and keep running that until the next fresh batch comes in, which can be hours and hours away,” said Sharri Berg, vice president for news operations at the Fox News Channel. “We know what’s going on, but we can’t illustrate it. And it will probably get more picture-poor once there are no more tracers, just covert operations.”

Most print news organizations say they have had reasonably good luck communicating with their staffs by satellite phone, even in remote areas of Afghanistan.

Many in the media regard coverage of ground troops as the key to providing the American public with a complete and accurate account of the war effort, and they worry that the disparate and often conflicting objectives of the media and the military will inhibit that effort. The “default position” for the military, they say, is to prohibit access.

“They’d like to fight the whole war at night,” said Mark Thompson, Pentagon correspondent for Time magazine, “and we like to shine a light.”

*

Shaw reported from Los Angeles, Jensen from New York.