A skeptical journalist isn’t an unpatriotic one

Over the past 18 months or so, I’ve received more complaints from readers about “unpatriotic” news coverage than any other issue. Conversations with journalists at other news organizations suggest that my experience is not atypical.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, many Americans felt that any stories describing vulnerabilities in homeland security or the movement of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or the plight of Afghan refugees were not just “unpatriotic,” but downright “treasonous.”

In recent weeks, accusations that journalists are traitors have become even more frequent -- and more virulent. They’ve greeted virtually any story on civilian casualties in Iraq, any photograph of antiwar protesters, any question about the Pentagon’s war strategy, any coverage anywhere that challenged the military’s sunny appraisals of the progress of the war.

“You are no longer American patriots but Benedict Arnolds,” read one of many such e-mails to The Times.

Although the war itself is essentially over, there are bound to be more such allegations in the weeks and months ahead amid the inevitable revelations of more civilian casualties and damage to nonmilitary structures and more questions about the fate of Saddam Hussein and about the roles of the United States and the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq.

Meanwhile, if no weapons of mass destruction are found, some journalists are certain to suggest (quite rightly, in my view) that this failure undermines the Bush administration’s rationale for war. Journalists will also question whether the successful prosecution of the war will (or should) lead to similar wars in Syria, Iran and elsewhere in the Mideast.

Such stories will trigger more protests about “unpatriotic” journalists.

Why?

One explanation is the tragedy of 9/11 and the Bush administration’s successful (albeit utterly unsubstantiated) campaign to persuade most Americans that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in those terrorist attacks.

Another is that there is virtually unanimous agreement, even among those opposed to the war, that Saddam Hussein is an evil, brutal monster. Since he wasn’t going to leave power willingly, supporters of the war (and critics of the media) argue, the U.S. had to push him out -- preferably feet first -- and anyone who fails to understand that, especially in light of 9/11, must be anti-American ... unpatriotic.

The cheerleader mentality

But the media bear some responsibility for the perception that they’re unpatriotic.

“Our friends in cable TV ... have muddied the waters here,” says Jim Kelly, managing editor of Time magazine. Kelly is particularly critical of those who “plant the flag on their screens and try to stick a waving flag on virtually everything that moves, and the subtle implication is that the network has gone to war as well, on the side of the U.S. troops.”

This creates a “much more intense pressure” on the traditional networks and on the print media as well, Kelly says, because this approach has “changed the expectations that many readers and viewers have about the proper role of journalists in this war.”

Early cable coverage of the war -- much of it from embedded reporters who seemed awed by their first-ever, up-close-and-personal look at American military might and combat technology -- had a certain rah-rah, gee-whiz quality, Kelly says, and that reinforced the expectations of many viewers that all the media would function more as cheerleaders than as reporters, analysts and critics.

The media’s failure to provide early and comprehensive coverage of the antiwar movement has also been an important factor in the skepticism-plus-challenge-equals-treason equation.

There was a brief flurry of coverage during the later stages of the U.N. debate, but once war was underway, even that quickly subsided -- virtually disappeared -- despite burgeoning worldwide antiwar protests.

Aaron Brown, the CNN anchor, captured what seems to be the mainstream media view on this issue when he said, during a discussion on Pacifica Radio earlier this month, that with the war underway, any talk about whether it should be on is “just not a relevant question” any longer.

With so little attention given to the arguments against the war -- and to fears of what this war could lead to, in Iraq and elsewhere -- most of the public has been left with only the war itself, and any questions about the conduct of the war are seen as undermining that effort.

Moreover, as Paul Steiger, managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, acknowledges, “there’s a natural instinct in journalists to look for problems,” and that instinct certainly came into play during the early stages of the war in Iraq.

Journalists were too quick to question the soundness of the U.S. battle plan, too quick to demand a timetable for victory and too quick to dismiss administration expectations that liberated Iraqis would greet American troops with open arms.

Doing their duty

But being cynical and pessimistic -- and wrong -- is not the same as being unpatriotic. Journalists are not being unpatriotic or treasonous when they ask tough questions or challenge official pronouncements or try to show the impact of the war on enemies and noncombatants.

Quite the opposite. They’re being loyal not just to this country, but also to the ideals on which it was founded and for which our troops are fighting.

By waging war, those troops are fulfilling what their leaders see as their patriotic duty. By reporting as accurately, fairly and comprehensively as possible -- even when those reports may make our troops or their leaders look bad -- journalists are fulfilling their patriotic duty.

“It’s not that I don’t care who wins,” Steiger says. “I do think it’s important who wins. I’m rooting for the United States against Saddam Hussein. But our job is to stand back from that and try to communicate as best we can what’s really going on.

“To say that it’s unpatriotic to look at both the pluses and the minuses is simply wrong.”

Steiger probably resents charges of unpatriotic coverage even more than most of his colleagues. Daniel Pearl, one of his best reporters, was killed in Pakistan last year.

Nine other reporters were killed during the war in Afghanistan. Ten have died in Iraq. Since 1812, more than 700 journalists have been killed on the world’s battlefields.

Journalists are unpatriotic?

I don’t think so.

David Shaw can be reached at david.shaw@latimes.com.