The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, defines “civil liberties” as follows: fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.
The key word here is "unwarranted."
In the days and months following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the White House put a tight lid on all information pertaining to the murderous incident. As a result, the U.S. media found itself in a position where providing in-depth reporting on the events of Sept. 11 became somewhat cryptic. Since emotions in America were running high and national security was perceived as tantamount, was the suppression of information warranted?
In a country where freedom of the press and freedom of speech have always been fiercely guarded rights, post 9/11, Americans — including many journalists — seemed to defer to the perceived wisdom of government as we barreled into a war with Afghanistan, a country with none of its own citizens in the driver's seat on any of the hijacked planes.
"I think that in war times, journalists do approach their jobs slightly differently than they do in times of peace," says Kathryn Kolbert, a civil rights lawyer and executive producer of National Public Radio's Justice Talking. "In the past year, journalists have been very aware of that constraint and I think they have been very good at questioning it and making sure the public receives as much information as possible. We certainly don't want the government establishing what the news media can and cannot say."
As the issue of national security reached a frenzied pitch, many American journalists appeared to impose gag orders on themselves and stayed away from any tough questions for the George W. Bush administration.
"It's the government's instinct to not tell people the facts and it's the media's job to dig harder and not roll over when someone says, Œno comment,'" says Chip Scanlon, a 22-year reporter and a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "I don't think we're doing a good enough job digging out the truth about 9/11 and what we're going to do in its aftermath. The media needs to be a strong voice for critical thinking and for informing the country about what its government is doing. I'm worried that the government doesn't understand how important that is."
On Oct. 10, 2001, just a day shy of the one-month anniversary of the attacks, Condoleezza Rice, White House national security adviser, and the five major television news organizations reached a joint agreement to edit videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda if the government found the language inflammatory.
These networks included ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, the Cable News Network (CNN) and the Fox News Channel.
With lightning speed, many on-air reporters donned American flag lapel pins, showing their support for the U.S., as they repeatedly referred to the "terrorists." Taking their lead from George W., who incessantly drew overly simplistic distinctions between "good" and "evil," the issue of patriotism reared its ugly head in pressrooms around the country.
"One of the concerns that we at the Washington Post have is that federal agencies such as [Health and Human Services] are using national security as a reason to withhold information," says Ceci Connolly, a Post reporter who investigates health care issues.
Connolly says that she has been waiting nearly nine months for a response from the government for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. She says she is still trying to learn the results of the experimental anthrax vaccine administered to potential victims after exposure to the virus last fall, rather than before, as it had always been in the past.
"Often they'll provide the material in waves, but we haven't gotten anything," Connolly says. "Now, much more often you'll hear the refrain, ŒWe can't provide that because of national security.' But this national security seems to be very broad. In fact, [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and [Vice President Dick] Cheney have delivered public scoldings to anyone in the press or the Congress who has challenged the administration on any policy — and that's been surprising and unfortunate."
With the war in Afghanistan simmering, and bin Laden still on the loose, U.S. jingoism — and the press — has turned to talk of a war with Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.
"When American soldiers are being shot at, journalists understandably tend to be more careful about what they report," says Howard Kurtz, Washington Post media reporter and the host of the weekly CNN program Reliable Sources. "The situation in Iraq is different because no shots have been fired yet and there are more leaks on the Œunified front' of the Bush administration than there were during the Afghanistan war — and we know how the press loves leaks. In fact, the degree to which newspapers are blaring Œsecret' plans to invade Iraq on their front pages is striking many people as just slightly short of patriotic. Seems like all bets are off."
Kolbert says she has also observed a change in the media's recent coverage of the "war on terrorism."
"The whole question about invading Iraq seems to be a public policy debate," she says. "The administration has taken one view, but there's a range of views and the press has been more willing to take them on. That conundrum, when a country is at war, and there is a limit to information, is an historic one. But the obligation of the press is to explore its government's policies. I think in recent weeks, we've seen a shift, where journalists are more willing to approach government about those policies."
Scanlon still thinks the press should do more.
"With the anniversary approaching, people are reconnecting with a lot of the same emotions that the attack inspired," he says. "We responded as a profession with a natural emotional connection. But the downside is that I don't know if the media has been able to detach enough from that response to do the tough, hard questioning of government. We seem to be marching into another war and I don't think the media is training enough of a critical eye on what the administration is doing."
The American Civil Liberties Union, a watchdog agency created in 1920 to protect the rights guaranteed Americans by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, says it will continue to keep an eye on the relationship between the press and the government.
"We certainly have been critical of what could be seen as attempts made by the government to stifle information," says Larry Frankel, Pennsylvania ACLU legislative director. "We fully support a free and vigorous debate about government policies and the notion that the press takes an active role in presenting that debate. The process should be as open as possible and it's inappropriate for anyone in the administration to suggest that it is unpatriotic to do so."
Still, Kolbert believes that, given the circumstances, the U.S. press has done as well as it can.
"Civil liberties has lots of meanings," she says. "Civil liberties in times of war are challenged everyday. There is a balance between security and liberty, speech and security, and religion and security. The courts are going to have be the arbiters of where those lines are drawn. I think our press corps did pretty well. Now, as we're starting to debate invading Iraq, there are a lot of important questions to be asked and the fact that they're continuing to ask those questions is what is important."
citypaper.net/articles/2002-09-05/cover2.shtmlE-mail this article