By :
SALIM MUWAKKIL
Some American journalists covering the war on
terrorism have abandoned themselves to the patriotic
passions of the times so enthusiastically and so
uncritically that they apparently have forgotten their
role as the Fourth Estate.
Those who criticize this flagrantly unprofessional
behavior have been ignored, ridiculed or condemned for
lack of patriotism. And in many places, specifically
the Fox News Channel (which has distinguished itself
by dispatching the cartoonish Geraldo Rivera to
Afghanistan), some newsreaders and journalists sport
American flag lapel pins. A virtual Old Glory can be
spotted waving in a corner of the video frame.
These public patriots fail to ask this crucial
question: How can one claim to be an impartial
chronicler of events in a conflict while loudly
proclaiming allegiance to one of the parties? These
news shops may consider it good business to showcase
their patriotism and, after all, profit is their most
important product.
But, aside from the fact that jingoistic journalism is
supposed to be an oxymoron, the corporate media's
patriotic displays also are endangering the lives of
their colleagues.
This open willingness to abandon journalistic ethics
is a new phenomenon within the U.S. news media. It's
certainly understandable for journalists to feel
attached to their home nations. But in their
professional work, those personal links should be
de-emphasized.
In a war zone, that detachment is even more necessary.
A journalist's overt identification with one of the
combatants in a conflict easily leads to charges of
spying.
Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's abductors
have charged he was a CIA or Israeli intelligence
(Mossad) agent, all of which has been strongly denied
by his employer. A 1976 investigation by a Senate
committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) found
that more than 50 American journalists had worked as
CIA agents during the Cold War era. The committee's
final report firmly denounced this practice and urged
the intelligence community to "permit American
journalists and news organizations to pursue their
work without jeopardizing their credibility in the
eyes of the world through covert use of them."
What's more, journalist groups consistently have urged
Congress to prohibit the use of journalists as spies.
But Congress hasn't listened and never has restricted
the practice.
The issue was raised anew in a 1996 hearing of the
Senate Intelligence Committee. Former CIA director
John Deutch argued to continue the practice of using
journalists as spies. Most journalist groups agreed
with CNN's then-president Tom Johnson, who said during
the hearing "under no conditions should journalists be
used as a cover for spying."
Terry Anderson, the former Middle East correspondent
for the Associated Press who was abducted in Lebanon
in 1985 and held for nearly seven years, also
testified at the hearing. Anderson said "we need an
absolute and public blanket ban on recruiting and use
of journalists and clergy by any intelligence
agencies, and also the use of journalistic cover."
The Justice Department's announcement that the Wall
Street Journal had shared intelligence with the U.S.
government by turning over the hard drive files of a
computer formerly owned by Al Qaeda throws doubt on
the fairness of some American journalists.
Those files reportedly chronicled the travels of
someone whose itinerary closely resembled that of
alleged shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid and,
coincidentally, the subject of Daniel Pearl's
research. That discovery was followed by Reid's
indictment and, a few days later, Pearl's abduction in
Pakistan.
For those reasons and more, journalists should keep
their tribal colors concealed beneath their
professional garb.
-- Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times
E-mail: salim4x@aol.com
From Chicago Tribune
