Are Americans getting the
full picture?
Jingoistic, sugar-coated, superficial -- those
are just some of the criticisms leveled at US television networks’
coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan in recent days -- and
not just by the foreign competition.
Columnists for newspapers such as the Wall Street
Journal and the New York Times have deplored what they describe
as the networks’ shallow and soft-focus reporting. The Journal’s
Tunku Varadarajan has attacked the superficial analysis offered
by CNN’s “parachute” journalists, while the Times’ Camryn James
lamented US television’s knee-jerk pandering to the public mood.
Weighing into the US cable stations and networks
for their “myopic view”, James criticized editors for caving
into patriotism “rather than informing viewers of the complex,
sometimes harsh realities they need to know."
“If a priority of America’s war on terror is holding
a global coalition together, it helps to know, without sugar-coating,
what the rest of the globe is thinking,” she wrote.
At a media industry conference this week in Barcelona,
Spain, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC’s) news
chief said he was startled by the contrast between US and European
small-screen coverage of the 40-day-old war.
“It’s like watching two different wars,” said
Tony Burman, executive director of Canada’s national public
broadcaster.
“The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has
focused very much on the humanitarian issues in the region ...
the human dimension,” while NBC, ABC and CBS had anchored their
reports “almost exclusively” around Pentagon briefings, he explained.
“There seems to be a real reluctance on the part
of the US television media to dwell on the human impact,” he
said.
Burman also noted that the “uncritical, hyper-patriotic”
reporting differed remarkably little between the three national
networks, who he felt were all toeing the administration line.
“They’re in lockstep with the administration
... and there’s no distinction between the networks, which is
unusual in a competitive environment.”
Bill Wheatley, vice president of NBC News, brushed
aside the accusations.
“(Our) coverage of the war isn’t slanted in any
way,” he said. “Our focus, quite properly, has been on the American
war effort and that’s what our viewers expect.”
US television coverage needed to be seen in the
context of September 11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon which claimed some 4,500 lives, he pointed
out.
As for objectivity and balance: “We haven’t shied
away from dealing with the fact that there has been collateral
damage ... and not everything in the war has gone well,” said
Wheatley.
Nevertheless, some dissatisfied viewers are turning
to foreign media, notably the BBC, the CBC and Qatar-based Arabic
channel Al-Jazeera for their information.
One of those is Claire Namenko, a 53-year-old
antiques dealer, who lives in Detroit, Michigan, a city not
far from the US-Canadian border where many Americans can receive
Canadian channels that carry CBC programming.
“It’s more complete ... more objective,” she
said, explaining her preference for the CBC.
“You hear more about what the rest of the world
thinks about the war, and you get fewer soundbites from US officials.”
There’s no way to judge whether the US audience
for the CBC or BBC has increased since September 11, because
neither channel qualifies for ratings in the US.
But both broadcasters claim to have picked up
viewers, around September 11 and then again with the beginning
of the US-led air campaign against Afghanistan.
Another 26 small US channels have signed up for
BBC’s daily half-hour news program since September 11, and the
corporation’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, is selling its
war expertise in an advertising campaign featured in Newsweek,
Time and the New York Times magazine among others, according
to BBC Worldwide spokesman Josh Weinberg.
The message?
“There are 191 countries in the world. How many
does your news cover?”
Source: Agence France Presse
|