home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- REVIEWS, Page 84BOOKSLook Back in Anger
-
-
- By WILLIAM A. HENRY III
-
- TITLE: SECOND FRONT
- AUTHOR: John R. MacArthur
- PUBLISHER: Hill & Wang; 260 pages; $20
-
- THE BOTTOM LINE: A gulf war opponent lacerates the U.S.
- press for having been too "patriotic," cooperative and gullible.
-
-
- Bombing runs that visibly reduced Iraqi targets to instant
- rubble. Midair collisions between Scud and Patriot missiles.
- Pentagon press conferences explaining live the blow by blow of
- battle. To the U.S. public, these unforgettable images made the
- gulf war the most reported conflict in memory. But journalists,
- aware that enterprise was thwarted and that news organs served
- mainly as conduits for government, regard the war as a setback
- for press freedom and thus for holding bureaucrats accountable.
-
- This is the plausible premise of John MacArthur, publisher
- of Harper's. But his book, which might have been valuable
- scholarship about how things went wrong, self-destructs from the
- opening page because of his obsessive rage that the war ever
- took place. To MacArthur, good journalism is by definition
- antiwar journalism. He cannot credit that anyone of intelligence
- and good faith might view the gulf conflict as politically
- necessary, let alone morally just. At most he acknowledges that
- the war was popular, but only so he can scorn as "commercial"
- and "cynical" any posture other than a lonely, unyielding
- crusade for peace. He denounces big organizations, including
- Time Warner, for trying to negotiate workable coverage with the
- Defense Department. He wanted them to walk out and join a
- protest lawsuit, co-sponsored by Harper's and other journals of
- opinion, that went nowhere.
-
- In his fury at what he sees as Pentagon duplicity,
- MacArthur virtually demands that chief executives of large news
- organizations insult the government with defiance rather than
- hear its case. He seems not to grasp that the perception of just
- such behavior by reporters has alienated a large percentage of
- the public these news organizations are meant to serve. Although
- many readers complain that journalists do not seem patriotic,
- MacArthur thinks reporters should be neutral about whether their
- country's forces win or lose. He also dismisses in a sentence
- or two some practical reasons why the war was covered almost
- entirely on the Pentagon's terms: its brevity, the fact that so
- much of it was by air (in planes too small to accommodate the
- press) and, once it shifted to the ground, the rigorous terrain.
-
- MacArthur quotes many leading journalists gloomily
- appraising gulf war coverage. But he has few revelations. By far
- his most striking was unveiled last January in a New York Times
- op-ed page piece. He debunks the headlined story that Iraqi
- invaders took Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to die. The star
- witness in a congressional investigation of this supposed
- episode was a teary 15-year-old using a pseudonym. She was, in
- fact, the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S., and
- MacArthur implies that the whole episode was concocted by
- Kuwaiti officials and their public relations agency, Hill and
- Knowlton, then eagerly taken up by President Bush.
-
- MacArthur never seems to grasp the full significance of
- what the Pentagon actually did during the war, which is
- equivalent to what Ross Perot is doing in peacetime. By using
- live TV to reach the public, generals and their overseers could
- bypass the reporting process, cut out the middlemen, and thus
- avoid tough questions and independent opinion. Once upon a time,
- the public counted on reporters to journey to war for them.
- Satellite TV lets the public believe it has taken that journey
- for itself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-