Let every voice be heard

A few days after the war officially started I was on a plane to Atlanta reading The New York Times. I came upon an interesting article about how 12 Republican congressmen signed a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, complaining that journalists -- specifically Peter Jennings -- were asking soldiers "inappropriate" questions … (and) asked Mr. Rumsfeld to explain why he wasn't imposing "censorship." My initial reaction was to laugh at the absurdity, but now that we are a couple weeks into the conflict, it's not so funny. Although I feel it is highly unlikely that the government will impose outright censorship as suggested by these 12 congressmen who apparently fail to understand the First Amendment, the recent slew of high profile firings of journalists with anti-war sentiments comes painfully close. \nFrom the more nationally recognized firing of Peter Arnett from NBC, to less publicized punishment of journalists like Kurt Hauglie of the Huron Daily Tribune who was told his anti-war column would not run because "it might upset readers" (www.fair.org), to the cancellation of Phil Donahue's show due to his liberal viewpoints, it's likely that the anti-war movement will not be televised, at least not extensively. Americans boast about their freedoms, especially those given by our beloved First Amendment, but in times of war, too many people are willing to throw them out the door for the sake of public opinion. The hypocrisy in that astounds me. \nSo who's to blame? Both the military and the government have an invested interest in silencing anti-war voices. They also have the upper-hand by controlling access to information in times of war. The media, who may or may not be compelled to show a more balanced picture, has little choice but to submit to the interests of the government for fear of having the door to access shut in their face. The media also has advertisers to consider, and with the government public relations campaign spinning out of control and influencing public opinion, any negative coverage runs the risk of having crucial advertisers pull out -- and we all know that media can't (or won't) afford to risk loss of profit. There aren't enough fingers for all the pointing. \nUltimately, the battle for more balanced coverage does not stand a chance. If the news is bad and a journalist has the audacity to tell the truth, he or she will be crucified, vilified and ultimately silenced. Why? Because the American population will blindly support it. The government PR campaign has worked marvelously. Bush has managed to exploit the strong emotions of a post-Sept. 11 America and manipulated the country into a war with Iraq. One association with the word al Qaeda and America is ready to fight, guns blazing. Patriotism becomes part of pro-war rhetoric, and its true definition gets obscured. We are no longer able to support the young men and women fighting in Iraq while opposing the politicians who sent them there. That would be "unpatriotic and un-American."\nOpenly conservative news sources like Fox News are able to crown themselves the bearer of "Real Journalism: Fair and Balanced" with limited smirks. Americans don't seem to know better. In this country, people have a right to publicly argue that citizens should not voice their anti-war opinions after we are at war. We cross a line, however, when we begin to demand censorship and our media are stringed like puppets to enforce it. \nFreedom of speech is not to be reserved for what is popular and the more we continue to abuse that freedom for the sake of public morale, the more hypocritical this crusade to liberate the whole world becomes.