Freedom of Speech: Part One

Having suffered through two-thirds of Danny Schechter’s book, Embed: Weapons of Mass Deception, I am reminded of one of Mark Twain’s pearls of prose: “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.”

One might argue that my critical assessment of Mr. Schechter’s work is premature, given that I haven’t finished “consuming” it. I’m sorry, but my gag-reflex can really only handle 20 pages at time. Much like cooked spinach, it’s going down, but very slowly. All I can say is that the “Great Dissector” has it coming…

As I began reading the book, I thought his premise would be founded upon Hansell Duckett’s sentiment when he said, “What this country needs is more free speech…worth listening to”. But after my first “gag”, I was left with the impression that this is a man who was ‘excluded from the party’ and is rancorously pissed about it. So, here’s part of my “dissection” of his perspective…

"He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon

Pearls of wisdom that I would offer to Mr. Schechter as I attempt to heed them myself…

PARITY

One of the characteristics of the media that has turned me off over the years (which has compelled me to turn them off) is the lack of parity. It’s a deficiency that Schechter alludes to in his book, but not in the manner I would have hoped. While I agree with him that the media did not take an objective approach to the war in Iraq, that’s where it ends. His complaint seems to be less about the objectivity and more about how the media has “swung to the right”. Largely known as a liberal organization over the years for their self-appointed role as government watchdog and champion of human interests, it seems that the prevailing focus has swung more toward commercial interests. Consequently, he asserts that the journalistic integrity has been sacrificed at the alter of politics and commercialism. I agree, but that’s not the problem, Danny-boy. The problem is that you still associate the media with journalism.

Members of the media (whom I’m loathe to refer to as journalists) have forgotten what their role truly is; they are living witnesses to history. Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge (or let anyone else acknowledge) their shortcomings in this capacity. Any law enforcement official in this country will tell you that given a room full of witnesses to a crime, there will be a room full of different accounts to it. Why? Because we all bring our own perspective to the same world. There is no single truth, only perspectives that coincide from time to time… As I read his pompous outpourings over the criticism the media and its constituents received from our government, I wondered where the parity was. What gives them the exclusive right to criticize the government with impunity? Are they really beyond reproach? Are you, Peter Arnett? Are you, Geraldo Rivera? Are you beyond reproach because you wave the banner of the First Amendment? Just out of curiosity, would you be as self-important if it had been the 10th Amendment?

I think what bothers me the most is that our media is the face that other countries believe reflects our society. That deeply concerns me, just as it should concern many of the world’s 1.3 billion Arabs that Al-Jazeera reflects their culture. …but that’s another rant.

In his book, Schechter makes fun of Donald Rumsfield and the manner in which he “takes down journalists”. He cited a news conference where a reporter interrupted Rumsfield’s response with a follow-up and was “shushed” like a father quiets a child. Apparently, not only are reporters beyond reproach, they are also above polite manners and common courtesies. Little did Rumsfield know that the reporter was wearing a button on his lapel that said, “Please don’t talk when I’m interrupting. It’s rude!” (Just kidding, folks.)

HONOR BEFORE LOYALTY

A thoughtful discussion (which I found wanting in the book) that I would have enjoyed is the dichotomy between honor and loyalty in the context of journalism during wartime. How do you balance the loyalty to your country and countrymen with what you believe to be “the right thing”? Personally, I am of the mind that honor always comes before loyalty. Journalists, however, are faced with a real challenge of staying true to themselves (as they are defined by their journalistic integrity) while striving to protect the country that has granted them the freedom to do so. Here’s where I would use Peter Arnett as a good centerpiece for the debate. My position is that, while Peter may have been satisfying his journalistic integrity (and I use that loosely), he lost his balance. He was fired for his disloyalty, not his principles (or adherence to them).

Independent reporters present a different challenge insomuch that they are often not affiliated with a country (by way of a media organization). They, however, simply lack the balance between their ears. Driven by who-knows-what (pride, perhaps), they put themselves in harm’s way in an effort to “scoop the story”. Schechter mentions four such journalists in Iraq who were arrested and detained by military forces. While they are ostensibly non-combatants, they have the capacity to draw imminent danger to those around them. How many of us have seen a news crew on the side of the road and wanted to stop to see what was going on? Why? Go home and watch it. The mentality in the back of our minds, though, is to solve the mystery immediately. Still not convinced? During the 1990’s the media visiting Iraq were very closely scrutinized for fear that they were CIA officers collecting intelligence under the cover of journalism. During the recent war, each correspondent was paired with a “minder” that accompanied them to all “newsworthy locations”, monitored the questions they asked, and reported back to the Ministry of Information on a daily basis. Why was the Ministry of Information bombed? The government claims “command and control” operations were being conducted within it. Qadm, the liaison between the Ministry and foreign correspondents was, in-fact, an Iraqi intelligence officer. And how might we know that? It could be that we DID have CIA operatives posing as journalists (or among the “human shields”). So, who’s to say what the allegiance was of the four independent journalists in southern Iraq? At least we KNEW that the embedded journalists weren’t betraying us…Then again, that’s open for debate, isn’t it…

Peripheral to this discussion, I would have liked to see Schechter objectively address the nature of propaganda. In the balance between honor and loyalty, there is a subplot that addresses war propaganda for and against us. (I think it’s fortunate for our media that it’s not considered a military function by the Geneva Conventions.) Critical of our media for being a propaganda machine for the Pentagon and Bush administration (which I won’t contest), Schechter fails to recognize that the stories he longed to hear/tell about (e.g. Iraqi civilian casualties, the inefficacy of PSYOPs, changes to the “war plan”, imprecise “smart bombs”, etc.) were clearly tools of propaganda for the Iraqi regime and its supporters. Personally, I don’t think it’s any wiser to tell both stories (arm both combatants equally) than it is to choose either side (in the case of journalism). Stay the fuck out of it altogether, is what I’d prefer they did. The last thing our military machine needs is 200 million micro-managers, inspired by these emotional instigators, weighing in their public opinion. The chance for them to do that was in the beginning, before the war began, and they did…we did. As a military veteran, my position is, “sit-down, shut-up, and let me do my job”.

As I rant on, I find my disdain is surfacing more plainly. So, as long as I’ve long since departed from the “high road”, let me close with this. My grandfather used to tell me a joke that I haven’t truly felt the gravity of until recently. It’s decidedly controversial and I’ve modified it to serve my point here…it’s just as poignant nonetheless. Without further ado, I’d like to recommend the world’s three shortest books (in addition to the ones at the right):

• Who’s Who from Texas A&M


• Arab Heroes of the 6-day War


• Ethics in Journalism in the 20th century and beyond…

Stay tuned…