John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine, is author
of the book "Second
Front," about censorship in the Gulf War.
Gerti Schoen: Do you believe that the censorship that
was going on during the Gulf War in 1991 will be repeated
under Bush Junior?
John MacArthur: Yes, it will be repeated. They are still
debating whether the pool arrangements of 1991 which confined
reporters to small groups of strictly controlled reporters is
going to be eliminated, and there will be no reporters at all
invited on any military operation. I think they might allow
reporters on ships as long as they're far away from the
action, but I think there will be an even tighter censorship
attached to this operation, it is going to be worse. It is
useful that the people who promulgated the censorship during
the 1991 war are once again in charge, Colin Powell and Dick
Cheney. And the press has absolutely no leverage. We might sue
again, some small lawsuits, some civil libertarians may do so,
but it's hopeless. This will be the most censored war in
history. Bush said in his address to the nation that some
victories won't even be visible. That means that the war is
intended to be fought in secret, so of course the failures and
defeats will also be invisible.
But how much do reporters depend on the government?
Can't they just go out and observe on their own?
Not easily. The traditional relationship between the
American army until Grenada was to bring reporters along with
officially accredited reporters and give them a chance to
observe, depending on the war. In some wars there have been
more official censorship than in others. In WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam it was understood that reporters were allowed to
accompany units into action. It's just that in Vietnam we
lost. And the politicians since then have found it convenient
for something that they should be blamed for, and they use it
as an excuse to crack down to the point where it seems there
will be no reporters at all. It won't just be censorship, but
silence.
So far there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage about
the threat of censorship in the mainstream media.
No. The press has lost the habit of independence in this
country. When it turns to war, when it turns to foreign policy
crisis, you have Dan Rather saying what he said on Letterman,
whatever the president says I should do. Just tell me where to
line up. Fortunately some newspapers are not like that, the
New York Times seems to be keeping a level ahead, and the
International Herald Tribune has been very good. There is
still some balance but in terms of fighting for the right to
cover the war on behalf of the American people it is finished.
The battle was lost in the Gulf War and the press is in a
hopeless position. I am not even sure they want to cover it,
there isn't even the spirit any more that was in Vietnam, of
skepticism, and the sense that the patriotic thing to do is to
tell the American people the truth and to try to be a
impartial as possible and not to be the cats paw of the
government. But when I say this on TV the reaction is
overwhelming, there is tremendous hostility to the free press
in this country.
When you look on the web or in the paper, it seems like
there is still a debate going on.
Yes, there is still a debate going on but not in the
mainstream press. I was on CNN and on Fox News and did
interviews, but that's very little time being devoted, you're
not seeing big articles about the pentagon's press policy, at
least not yet. And the war hasn't started yet. When we invade
Afghanistan the test is going to be whether there will be a
debate if it's covered properly. The networks are already
volunteering in promoting the war. Rather is saying that he
will support the president. He is the most famous anchor in
America. It's disgraceful. There is also a martial spirit on
the Fox Networks, in the NYT, Lou Dobbs.
What is the general mood at CNN about this?
I was on in the middle of the night that went fairly well.
But Ted Turner doesn't run CNN any more. In 1991 he ran it and
he allowed Peter Arnett to stay in Baghdad during the US
bombings. The question is if freelancers or reporters were
able to get into Afghanistan and try to cover the war. What
will the American army do, when they run across them? Will
they arrest them and send them across the border or allow them
to continue and then help them? The suspicion is that this
administration will arrest them and hold then and send them
over the border.
They couldn't do that with the BBC or the foreign
press.
Sure they could. They just detain them, suspect them to be
spies or Afghan agents, they do whatever they have to do to
fight the war in secret. That's the whole point to permitting
the generals to fail in secret. William Russell of The London
Times, the first great war correspondent, reported on the
terrible condition in the British military camps during the
Crimean War (1854-56). The parliament was so shocked by the
demoralization of the troops, the disease, the lousy food,
that beyond whether this was a justifiable war or not, they
were so appalled that the general was exchanged and they made
wholesale changes in the leadership of the military.
But what do they have to fear since the whole world
seems united against terrorism.
They have a lot to fear. When they go in and start killing
civilians, it makes us look bad. If the Taliban counterattacks
kill a lot of American soldiers and we are in for another
Vietnam, another long struggle, that's also bad publicity, and
they don't want it to come out in the American press. The less
bad news you report the more room you have to maneuver to have
positive propaganda. It was done all the time in Vietnam;
civilian casualty was sold as big success. Even with roaming
reporters pretty much doing what they wanted.
I have the impression that the media are shifting and
starting to report why the attack happened.
My impression is that Americans live in a perpetual
present. This is the country with the shortest attention span
in the civil world, and it is a cultural problem. We don't
know anything that happened 6 months ago much less 20 years
ago when we supported the Afghan resistance and Bin Laden
against the Soviet Union. No one remembers that we were
Saddam´s ally and supporter during the Iran-Iraq war. Nobody
remembers. In Germany and France there is an educated
community of people that knows that. Here people just don't
know. Every time I bring it up I get these blank stares, what
do you mean?
Would it be any different under a Gore
administration?
No, it would be exactly the same.
How exactly did censorship work during the Gulf
War?
Public relations officers read all pool reports. The pool
reporters were from the news organizations, the networks, and
the big newspapers. The pool would go out, draw straws, and
one reporter would go on the action. He'd come back and share
all this information, so there is no competition allowed, and
each version of the pool report would have to pass censorship
before it could be sent back to the news bureaus in Dahrain.
It was very effective censorship.
What role will freelancers play during this coming
war?
To some extent the world will have to depend on freelancers
and brave correspondents of news organizations who refuse to
play ball and walk on their own. There are still a few, but it
is very difficult to be on your own in such a hostile
environment without the support of the publisher.
Are the journalists victims of some kind of mass
self-censorship?
Yes, people are afraid to say the politically incorrect
thing or ask the un-PC question because they don't want to be
seen as not supporting the victims emotionally. But I think
the main patriotic thing for journalists to do is to try to
tell the truth. And let the people decide what our democracy
is supposed to be about. I've watched the BBC on C-Span; it's
like night and day. I read Le Monde every day. Both news
organizations are absolutely pro-American but there is a real
debate going on.
How does the development in Hollywood play into this,
that they only want to produce fluffy love stories instead of
action movies?
It won't last because people love that stuff and this
country runs on money. They're not going to be able to sell
love stories all the time. It won't be long before we have a
lot of new Rambo movies, but the hero will be in Afghanistan
and kill guys in turbans.
– Gerti Schoen is a German journalist based in New
York.
HOME
