Anderson, professors say international reporting is here to stay
March 22, 2002
By Marcie Young
Statesman International Editor
Daniel Pearl and Terry Anderson had a lot in common. Both were foreign correspondents, covering the news in violent and dangerous overseas regions. Both were settled, soon-to-be fathers, and both were kidnapped, held hostage and threatened by political extremists.
Anderson, however, survived."If you see pictures of me when I was taken, they'd be strikingly similar," said Anderson, a former Associated Press bureau chief in Beirut and seven-year hostage.
Still, even with the lives of reporters on the line, Anderson said the press won't back down from dangerous situations and sacrifice international coverage. At a Utah State University-sponsored lecture Monday, Anderson said Pearl was not a chance-taker, but a journalist doing his job.
"Danny Pearl ... was well aware it was a dangerous profession," he said. "He knew what he was doing, and he did it the best way he could."
Even though Pearl was kidnapped while working, Anderson said the situation won't put a halt on coverage in war zones and other dangerous areas of the world.
"It is a job that is inherently dangerous. We know that," Anderson said.
Michael S. Sweeney, professor of journalism at USU and a historian of wartime journalism, agreed with Anderson, and said journalists often take assignments in dangerous parts of the world because they think the issue is important.
"I don't think one act of violence against a journalist will sour a generation of journalists from doing their jobs," he said.
Even though Pearl's situation received mass amounts of coverage, violence against reporters has not been restricted to just one incident over the last six months.
Since Sept. 11, 10 reporters have died while covering international stories, Anderson said.
Sweeney said, "There was a while there that more journalists were dead than soldiers [in Afghanistan.]"
While some journalists might decide they don't want to take the risks involved with overseas reporting, Sweeney said others would find the risks appealing.
"A lot of them get a real rush out of danger," he said.
Anderson agreed and said it takes a particular breed to cover violence internationally.
"The people who do that are peculiar," he said. "Good journalism is taking chances for important information."
Jeannie Johnson, a political science instructor and former state department and political officer, also said journalists are known for the risks they take to report the news.
"People have died covering stories for a long time," she said. "I don't think [violence against reporters] dampens the journalistic spirit."
Sweeney said he doubts any newspaper or network would force a journalist to come home to avoid a dangerous situation, but a reporter's request to come home would probably be honored. Another journalist, however, would immediately fill the empty spot in a foreign bureau, Sweeney said.
He also said international journalism is dictated more by money than by threats of violence. If the domestic budget is weak, Sweeney said, newspapers don't feel like they can afford reporters overseas. More money means more foreign bureaus, he said.
According to the January/February 2002 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review, AP has 100 overseas bureaus and 150 overseas correspondents. Because of this, Sweeney said most American newspapers are relying on AP bureaus to cover international news.
The Sept. 11 attacks brought a flood of reporters to Central Asia, according to CJR, with big news organizations adding anywhere from six to 12 reporters to the bureaus.
As of Sept. 1, The New York Times staffed 26 bureaus; The Los Angeles Times had 21; and The Washington Post had 21 overseas bureaus. The Wall Street Journal depended on 40 bureaus with 119 correspondents, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.
Regardless of money, Sweeney said there will be a lot more journalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan than in other parts of the world because of the current high news element. In times of war journalists are often forced to depend on military information officers for details, Sweeney said. He said very few reporters get to go where they want and are able to ask the questions they want to ask.
Even with hundreds of American correspondents in overseas bureaus, Sweeney said the version of what is going on in Afghanistan is coming from military sources."
If someone is prevented from seeing something ... then I call that censorship by denial of access," he said.
Anderson said, "Whatever it is you think, it's more complicated than that."During World War II, Sen. Hiram Johnson of California said, "The first casualty when war comes is truth."
Sweeney and Anderson agree, and although Johnson said the military often spins the truth during times of war, she also said journalists need to take responsibility for the role they play.
"What's happening in Afghanistan is a war of political control," she said. "[It's] about who gets to shape foreign policy."
Johnson said although the balance between the military and journalists is a touchy subject during times of war, she said there is a positive side.
"There is no way to mobilize the American public except for putting pictures in the living room," she said.
© Copyright 2002 The Statesman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)