FAIR
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
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 urging 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
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
Washington Post
Michael Getler, Ombudsman
ombudsman@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@fair.org
with
your correspondence.
|