NP? Little space for dissent to the military line

[Doug Millison]

http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-wp-opeds.html


ACTION ALERT:
Op-Ed Echo Chamber:
Little space for dissent to the military line

November 2, 2001

During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading
dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's
official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy
critics.

A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for
the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that columns
calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a
great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law
approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non-existent.

We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times and Post that clearly stressed
a military response, against only two columns stressing non-military
solutions. (Though virtually every op-ed in both papers dealt in some way
with September 11, most did not deal specifically with how to respond to the
attacks, with many focusing on economics, rebuilding, New York's Rudolph
Giuliani, etc. During the period surveyed, the Post ran a total of 105 op-ed
columns, the Times ran 79.)

Overall, the Post was more militaristic, running at least 32 columns
favoring military action, compared to 12 in the Times. But the Post also
provided the only two columns we could find in the first three weeks after
September 11 that argued for non-military responses; the Times had no such
columns. Both dissenting columns were written by guest writers.

The Times' and Post's in-house columnists provided the bulk of the pro-war
commentary. Two-thirds of the Times columns urging military action were
written in-house, as were more than half of the Post's pro-war columns. This
may say something about which journalists are singled out for promotion to
the prestigious position of columnist.

In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of the 107
op-ed writers at the Post, only seven were women. Proportionally, the Times
did slightly better, with eight female writers out of 79.

When critics argue that U.S. news media have a duty to provide a broad
debate on war, a common response is to ask why-- after all, isn't there a
political and popular consensus in favor of war?

Perhaps, but there's reason to believe that the extent and nature of that
consensus has been overstated and distorted.

In polls that offered a choice between a military response or nothing, it's
true that overwhelming majorities chose war. But given the choice between a
either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial of those
responsible (Christian Science Monitor, 9/27/01), a substantial minority
either chose extradition (30 percent) or were undecided (16 percent). These
people had next to no representation in the op-ed debate; in fact, it's
likely that many people asked to choose whether or not to go to war had
never seen an alternative to war articulated in a mainstream outlet.

There is also a little-acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about
military action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender imbalance
in Washington Post and New York Times op-eds. In the final two paragraphs of
a 1,395-word story titled "Public Unyielding in War Against Terror "
(9/29/01), the Washington Post pointed out that women "were significantly
less likely to support a long and costly war." According to the Post, while
44 percent of women would support a broad military effort, "48 percent said
they want a limited strike or no military action at all."

Similarly, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (Gallup.com, 10/5/01) showed that 64
percent of men think the U.S. "should mount a long-term war," while 24
percent favored limiting retaliation to punishing the specific groups
responsible for the attacks. In contrast, "women are evenly divided-- with
42 percent favoring each option." Noting that "women's support for war is
much more conditional than that of men," Gallup reports that though 88
percent of women favored taking retaliatory military action, that number
dropped to 55 percent if 1,000 American troops would be killed (76 percent
of men would support a war under these circumstances).

Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee proportional
representation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently pro-war and
anti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators (e.g., Mona
Charen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity--Washington Times,
10/18/01). But given the gender differences suggested by polling, more women
on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the conventional wisdom that
all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for an open-ended war.

Even, however, if one accepts the idea that the public overwhelmingly favors
war, the task of journalism is to remain independent and to ask tough
questions of policy makers. After all, American history includes many
official policies that were popular in their time, but which today are
viewed as disasters. Wouldn't the country have been better off if
journalists had provided a stronger, more abiding challenge to the consensus
that supported Vietnam, or the internment of Japanese-Americans?

More than any other newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post--
with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in U.S.
newsrooms-- have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views on how
to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose of the
op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions, both
papers failed their readers at a crucial time.

ACTION: Please urge the Washington Post and the New York Times to broaden
the range of debate on their op-ed pages about the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

CONTACT:
New York Times
Terry A. Tang, Op-Ed Page Editor
mailto:nytnews at nytimes.com
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS

Washington Post
Michael Getler, Ombudsman
mailto:ombudsman at washpost.com
(202) 334-7582

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair at fair.org with your
correspondence.

[...]

                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair at fair.org

list administrators: FAIR-L-request at american.edu



Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com