|
CNN SHOWDOWN: IRAQ
Media's Role in War: for Better or Worse?
Aired March 26, 2003 - 12:50 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR, WAR IN IRAQ: For more on this intense fight for viewers and the unprecedented access to this war, we're joined by CNN's media analyst and writer, Howard Kurtz. He joins us live from "The Washington Post" newsroom.
Welcome, Howard. Good to see you.
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN'S RELIABLE SOURCES: Same here, Paula.
ZAHN: As you know, there has been criticism of this embedding process. In fact in today's "USA Today" Andy Rooney of CBS is quoted as saying, "It's very difficult to write anything critical about a guy you're going to have breakfast with the next morning." Do you think viewers are getting an accurate view of the war through the embedded reporters?
KURTZ: I have talked to a number of the embedded correspondents. I think they're doing a terrific job under difficult circumstances.
I hate to disagree with Andy Rooney but -- yes, there's a bonding process when you're eating and sleeping and fighting with soldiers. But as the news has turned not so good in recent days and some of these units have come under attack and taken casualties as some have been involved in friendly fire incidents, the correspondents, the embedded correspondents have given us that bad news, too. I don't think they're acting as a propaganda outlet for the administration.
ZAHN: How about the specific criticism, though, that viewers have largely seen a sanitized war because of some of the restrictions they have to live by. We certainly understand why they're not going to provide any information that would compromise the safety of troops. Let's start from there. But beyond that, talk about some of those other restrictions.
KURTZ: I think the war perhaps has been a little too sanitized. But I don't think that's because of government imposed restrictions. I think that is because American media organizations are reluctant to show gruesome pictures of dead bodies and injured civilians. We've seen a little bit of that, but not that much.
I don't think that's a question of government control. I do think, to the extent that people at home -- and we've never had a war technological war like this, where you can watch injured soldiers being interviewed in real-time on the battlefield. To the extent that people at home are getting a distorted picture, I don't think it's because of Pentagon restrictions, I think it is not because of taste issues. I think it's because the camera lens can only focus on one thing at a time. So if you're with the 101st Airborne or the 3rd Infantry and it comes under attack, and there are exploding shells, suddenly it seems to those at home that the war is going badly. When, in fact, in the big picture, it may be that coalition forces aren't doing that badly. But we can only see one snapshot at a time of these individual military units.
ZAHN: Let's come back to that gray area, for a moment, the issue of taste or respect. Do you think images of dead soldiers should be limited on TV?
KURTZ: I certainly don't think they should be eliminated. War is an ugly business. Sometimes in the run up to war and in the enthusiasm of the media, this has been portrayed as -- it was going to be another video game war, pretty bloodless, we march on to Baghdad in 2 1/2 hours and everybody would be cheering.
That's clearly not happening. I think that the cameras need to record the uglier side of war. I don't think we should shy away from that.
As the same time, I was not a huge fan of putting up this footage of this, you know, propaganda video made available by Saddam Hussein's government of POWs being questioned against their will about their names and so forth. I certainly think we should see a snippet of that, perhaps some still pictures, but beyond that, it strikes me as exploitation.
ZAHN: And then out of curiosity, there's a Pew Research Poll out today, showing that just 38 percent of those asked on Monday thought the war was going well. That's down from 71 percent on Friday. Do you think any of the coverage the last couple days has anything to do with those numbers?
KURTZ: Well, absolutely. It's impossible not to turn on the television and see reports about the war not going so well, at least for those individual units that have taken some casualties, that have made some mistakes, that have had difficulties.
I think the problem here is the media were to some degree used by the Pentagon in the huge run up to the war, Paula, where we gave the impression that this was going to be -- if not a cake walk, a pretty smashing success for the United States and British forces. And in fact, you know, things go wrong in war and there are mistakes made and sometime people die. Now the expectations are coming more in line with reality.
ZAHN: Finally, Howard, did you see the same shift in tone, that I saw, in the various news conferences that we covered today? Particularly at Cent Com, very pointed questions being asked, about did you underestimate the strength of these paramilitary forces?
KURTZ: Yes, I think that journalists, perhaps leaned too far in the direction of this was going to be a smashing victory for the United States of America, are now becoming more skeptical, more aggressive and trying to hold Pentagon, and other officials, accountable for what now looks to be like could be a longer and somewhat more difficult war.
That's OK. That's not going to make us popular. That's the role of journalism to ask those kinds of questions. As long as we don't start getting carried away and start talking about a quagmire and so forth. That mistake was made in the early weeks in Afghanistan, which of course turned out quite well. But, yes, I have noticed that shift in tone. It has been unmistakable.
ZAHN: Yes, hard to ignore today. Howard Kurtz, thanks so much. We'll let you get back to your column.
Howard Kurtz of "The Washington Post" and also the anchor of "Reliable Sources" here on CNN.
|
