There’s a saying to the effect that the first casualty in war is
the truth. One apparently can add perspective, objectivity and
television journalists to that fold.
From the highest levels of NBC to the newsrooms right here in
Castle Rock, journalists struggle during wartime to achieve a
balance between objectivity and patriotism, news that might offend
some people versus information that is merely offensive, and so
on.
The struggle allows nonjournalists a glimpse into the hectic,
make-a-decision-yesterday-but-don’t-get-involved world of
news.
Perhaps nothing brought this to light more than NBC’s decision
to fire Baghdad-based correspondent Peter Arnett for giving an
interview to Iraqi television in which he said that coalition
forces had “failed because of Iraqi resistance.”
There are several things that need to be asked:
q Was it wrong for Arnett to grant the interview?
q Was it wrong for him to say what he said?
q Were both wrong?
The answers to the questions depend on a number of things. If
Arnett were an analyst – maybe even still a correspondent – for NBC
and appeared on an American or British television station, he most
likely would not have been fired for saying what he said, nor would
he have been fired for giving the interview.
Given who he gave the interview to – Iraqi state-run television
– he should have known that his analysis was not what was sought.
What was wanted was something for the sake of propaganda. Thus, it
was bad judgment.
However, we must look through the other eye, so to speak. What
if he had given the interview to a German or French television
station? Would this be something for which Arnett should be
fired?
If we want objective reporting from journalists about all the
other issues we find important, then we certainly want objective
reporting from the front lines. We want neither hawks nor doves as
journalists.
Anything that gives an indication one way or the other, and
which does not appear on the opinion pages, should be avoided.