A rchive Date
[ 22-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/berton.html
Complaints from both sides suggest fair coverage
By Paul Berton - Free Press Editor-in-Chief
March 22, 2003
And so it has begun. A year and a half after Sept. 11. More than a year after U.S. President George W. Bush signalled a coming war with his "axis of evil" speech. More than a decade after the United States last ventured into Iraq with bombs and soldiers.
For better and for worse, people are engaged - it sells a lot of newspapers.
People are not only interested in this issue, they probably feel more strongly about it than most others in recent memory. What's more, they are not at all united in their views.
It means more calls to me and other journalists here about our coverage. Most people seem to be squarely on one side or the other. That means our coverage is often unacceptable to them. The criticism is not fair.
Do we print enough photographs of fearful Iraqis? Do we print enough photographs of determined soldiers? Are there too many opinions from those who oppose war and not enough from those who support it? Is there too much information about hardware and not enough about the human cost? Too much about diplomatic efforts and not enough about military strategy? Too much about the effectiveness of smart bombs and not enough about the inevitable human suffering? Too much about the damage that bombs cause and not enough about the misery that persists in Iraq under a brutal regime?
If my phone calls and e-mails are any indication, The Free Press is either too pro-war or too anti-war, we're not patriotic enough or we're just lap-dogs for the Bush administration. The fact I am getting an equal number of messages from both sides of the argument is one of the truly comforting things about this job. It means our coverage is fair and balanced.
Because the U.S. military is a primary source of information in instances such as this, the coverage often tends to be of the "we're winning" sort. But we try to make sure all voices and all related events get into the news and opinion pages.
What is the mood of Canada? What do the people of Southwestern Ontario think?
If we believe the federal government's actions are a reflection of the will of the majority of Canadians, it would seem most of us believe the war without the United Nations does not deserve our active support. The polls are a bit of a wash, but the unprecedented numbers who have come out for peace rallies in recent weeks can't be ignored.
I think those peace rallies are pretty good indicators that more people than perhaps ever before believe war is best avoided. Actions are always louder than words. Getting up out of your easy chair on a chilly February or March weekend and going out to show the world how you feel indicates strong feelings indeed.
Those held this week in places as disparate as Japan, Indonesia, Egypt, Australia, Jordan, Italy and the United States itself have frightening undertones and can lead to global instability. We must watch them closely.
But are they the majority? And have they really thought it out? Do they understand what is at stake?
I believe that above all, this is a monumental failure in diplomacy, and for that Bush must take much of the responsibility.
But the United Nations and other countries are not without blame. Many countries refusing to support the U.S. effort this week were in full support of United Nations Resolution 1441, which ordered Saddam to disarm. Was it just cheap talk? History shows us how dangerous that can be.
Still, there are far more questions than answers regarding this war - and its effects. How will the populations of other already volatile nations react if the war persists? How will this operation escalate anti-American sentiment around the world? How will the country be rebuilt? Who will lead it?
Big questions, and there are lots more like them. Nobody should pretend they have the answers.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|