‘War on Terror’ News Coverage Questioned
Re “Cover the Terror War as a War,” Opinion, Jan. 23: Hugh Hewitt wants The Times to cover the “global war on terror” more thoroughly, like newspapers covered World War II.
But such a comparison is disingenuous because 64 years ago the U.S. formally declared war before committing its armed forces to combat.
Wartime appeals like Hewitt’s are off the mark until he can explain why the 1st Article of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 have no bearing on the current deployment of our troops. Only by circumventing these laws could the Bush administration go ahead and beat the war drums.
Hewitt would have The Times succumb to constitutional amnesia and function not in service to the public but to the regime as an outlet of propaganda, supporting a state of undeclared perpetual war.
William Yarchin
Huntington Beach
*
Hewitt’s article is right on the money. I agree that The Times has failed to connect the dots for its readership in this war. It is my belief that The Times has failed to present any positive news coming out of Iraq because of its dislike of President Bush and his administration.
The enmity of The Times toward the administration is no secret. I think The Times could redeem itself and win the support of those of us in the center by being more fair and balanced. One way to do that would be to follow the suggestions presented by Hewitt.
The public needs to know who our enemy is, the successes we have had in combating him and the positive results of the war in Iraq, not just the negative.
Gary Aminoff
Los Angeles
*
So The Times gets lectured by a staunch administration supporter on how to cover a “war.” First The Times is responsible for Robert Scheer and a few other Americans not calling this war as Hewitt sees it. Does Hewitt remember previous “wars” that had no draft and no sacrifice to pay for the war -- in fact, that your obligation to pay for the war was reduced?
Ironically, I have a beef similar to Hewitt’s about the inadequate coverage of facts that fail to educate readers. For example, Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda, Hussein had no connection to 9/11, and the invasion of Iraq was on the drawing board on Jan. 28, 1998, designed by the neocons.
Again, I completely agree with Hewitt that The Times’ “coverage is woefully inadequate.” As the first responsibility of an American president is to provide security to citizens (which Bush failed to do), it is similarly the first responsibility of a great newspaper to provide critical and ever scrutinizing coverage of the actions, policies and agenda of an incumbent administration (which The Times fails to do).
Vincent De Vita
Northridge
*
Hewitt suggests that The Times is not doing its job because its readers are not “told in more detail and more repeatedly” specific facts about the war on terror.
Actually, the job of any decent news organization is to objectively disseminate information. It’s the role of the propagandist to endlessly reiterate the same information over and over as a method of indoctrination and, often, to foment fear. Hewitt and his self-righteous, biased minions do a fine job of that.
F.J. Rosenthal
Los Angeles