Winning the War on Censorship

The war goes on. It is “every day, every night,” as President George W. Bush said, “unrelentingly.” Only we hear about it between the hours of 6 and 7, on the news or on the radio as we shuttle to and from work. We are, as Bush said, “going back to our business.”

Yet, even as we do so, events are unfolding around the world that will have long-term effects on how we live our lives.

It remains our duty to be vigilant observers and thoughtful critics of this war. We can do so without being unpatriotic, while supporting our men and women in the armed forces, even while supporting the decisions made by the Bush administration. Thinking critically does not mean opposition; it does not even imply disagreement. Rather, it means relentlessly pursuing the truth and an understanding of the decisions of our government, which we must eventually hold accountable for its actions. This is what it means to live in a democracy.

Yet serious roadblocks are being set up against our critical judgment. We are being prevented by the military, by the Bush administration, by the network executives and even by the self-censorship of our supposedly relentless journalists from fulfilling our democratic duty—arguably the most important duty of the patriotic citizen in this time of crisis.

On Wednesday the networks agreed to edit out parts of Osama bin Laden’s televised statements, preposterously arguing that they posed a threat to Americans.

Well, maybe this isn’t so preposterous, but the reasons that National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice brought to the network executives were. Rice told them not only that the bin Laden broadcasts might contain hidden signals to terrorists already in the country (messages that they couldn’t get on the web or by phone?), but that they might provoke further violence against Americans. The latter claim makes even less sense knowing that bin Laden’s statements are already being broadcast worldwide in Arabic. Those who would be incited by his words are hearing them in Egypt, Palestine and Pakistan. If they are in America, they are here because they already have enough hatred to have joined a terrorist group. Bin Laden’s words are not likely to do us any more harm.

What broadcasting his statements might do is jeopardize the safety of Arab-Americans. Americans who hear the bin Laden statements might actually be convinced that this is a war between Americans and Arabs, Christians and Muslims, the West and the Middle East. These Americans might be so blinded that they would see every Muslim as involved in this jihad, resulting in the kind of attacks on Arab-Americans that we saw in the days and weeks after the terrorist attacks. This would be a tragedy, but hardly what Rice had in mind when she asked the networks to curb their coverage.

Where we can agree with Rice is that the American media does have a special responsibility in this crisis. Their sensationalistic, O.J.-Simpson-like coverage is not appropriate for today’s situation. That type of reporting could, indeed, threaten the nation’s security by provoking hysteria or hatred. The wall-to-wall coverage of Osama bin Laden is neither productive nor, after a certain saturation point, informative.

But get the story they must, and share it with the American people. Without them we are simply the pliable and gullible masses. The media must be our critical eyes and ears, asking the hard questions and sharing all the information that does not jeopardize our military campaign.

In doing so, new methods of reporting may be used. ABC has announced it will provide the printed text of Osama bin Laden’s messages along with still frames for graphics. This seems like an intelligent act; it shares all the information with the public without unduly sensationalizing its subject. It does not fall prey to the self-censorship that other networks will employ, preferring to keep the American people in ignorance.

Beyond responsible reporting, news analysis and editorial commentary are also vital to our nation. Some people have argued that analysis critical of the administration might actually jeopardize the war campaign, because it would show our enemies that we are divided.

But we are a democracy, and without dissenting viewpoints we cease to value our democratic ideals. In a crisis, it is even more important to have thinkers and commentators analyzing the events from 360 degrees of interpretation. Only then will we be able to grasp what is going on, make a decision as to its appropriateness and fulfill our duties as citizens by holding the government accountable in the next election cycle. Granted, now is not time for the pot-shots and humorous jabs that were common to critics of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find the hyper-critical tone usually so common to the media. Now is instead the time for serious, thoughtful critiques of that administration’s actions.

It is true that Bush, as our president, has been entrusted to the awesome task of winning the war on terrorism. But we, the citizens of the nation he now leads, have been given a task no less awe-inspiring. We may have given blood, donated to the Red Cross and sent solace to the people of New York. But we still have the constant duty of educating ourselves about the conflict and evaluating its progress.

Meredith B. Osborn is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. Her column appears on alternate Fridays.