{"article":{"id":12642,"heading":"FAIR ACTION ALERT: Op-Ed Echo Chamber: Little Space for Dissent to Military Line","author":"FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting","created":"2001-11-05 07:00:27","modified":"2005-08-15 00:42:44","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:42:44","article":"

FAIR ACTION ALERT: Op-Ed Echo Chamber\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/b> \r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n
FAIR<\/b>\r\n\r\nFairness & Accuracy In Reporting    \r\n112 W. 27th Street   New York, NY 10001\r\n

ACTION ALERT:<\/b>\r\n
Op-Ed Echo Chamber:\r\n
Little space for dissent to the\r\nmilitary line\r\n<\/p>

November 2, 2001<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading\r\ndailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's\r\nofficial policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy\r\ncritics.\r\n<\/p>

A FAIR survey of the New York Times<\/b> and the Washington Post<\/b>\r\nop-ed pages for the three weeks following the attacks (9\/12\/01 - 10\/2\/01)\r\nfound that columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks\r\nwere given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and\r\ninternational law approaches as an alternative to military action were\r\nnearly non-existent.\r\n<\/p>

We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times<\/b> and Post<\/b>\r\nthat clearly stressed a military response, against only two columns stressing\r\nnon-military solutions. (Though virtually every op-ed in both papers dealt\r\nin some way with September 11, most did not deal specifically with how\r\nto respond to the attacks, with many focusing on economics, rebuilding,\r\nNew York's Rudolph Giuliani, etc. During the period surveyed, the Post<\/b>\r\nran a total of 105 op-ed columns, the Times<\/b> ran 79.)\r\n<\/p>

Overall, the Post<\/b> was more militaristic, running at least 32\r\ncolumns urging military action, compared to 12 in the Times<\/b>. But\r\nthe Post<\/b> also provided the only two columns we could find in the\r\nfirst three weeks after September 11 that argued for non-military responses;\r\nthe Times<\/b> had no such columns. Both dissenting columns were written\r\nby guest writers.\r\n<\/p>

The Times<\/b>' and Post<\/b>'s in-house columnists provided the\r\nbulk of the pro-war commentary. Two-thirds of the Times<\/b> columns\r\nurging military action were written in-house, as were more than half of\r\nthe Post<\/b>'s pro-war columns. This may say something about which journalists\r\nare singled out for promotion to the prestigious position of columnist.\r\n<\/p>

In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of\r\nthe 107 op-ed writers at the Post<\/b>, only seven were women. Proportionally,\r\nthe Times<\/b> did slightly better, with eight female writers out of\r\n79.\r\n<\/p>

When critics argue that U.S. news media have a duty to provide a broad\r\ndebate on war, a common response is to ask why-- after all, isn't there\r\na political and popular consensus in favor of war?\r\n<\/p>

Perhaps, but there's reason to believe that the extent and nature of\r\nthat consensus has been overstated and distorted.\r\n<\/p>

In polls that offered a choice between a military response or nothing,\r\nit's true that overwhelming majorities chose war. But given the choice\r\nbetween a either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial\r\nof those responsible (Christian Science Monitor<\/b>, 9\/27\/01), a substantial\r\nminority either chose extradition (30 percent) or were undecided (16 percent).\r\nThese people had next to no representation in the op-ed debate; in fact,\r\nit's likely that many people asked to choose whether or not to go to war\r\nhad never seen an alternative to war articulated in a mainstream outlet.\r\n<\/p>

There is also a little-acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about\r\nmilitary action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender imbalance\r\nin Washington Post<\/b> and New York Times<\/b> op-eds. In the final\r\ntwo paragraphs of a 1,395-word story titled \"Public Unyielding in War Against\r\nTerror \" (9\/29\/01), the Washington Post<\/b> pointed out that women \"were\r\nsignificantly less likely to support a long and costly war.\" According\r\nto the Post<\/b>, while 44 percent of women would support a broad military\r\neffort, \"48 percent said they want a limited strike or no military action\r\nat all.\"\r\n<\/p>

Similarly, a CNN\/USA Today<\/b>\/Gallup poll (Gallup.com, 10\/5\/01)\r\nshowed that 64 percent of men think the U.S. \"should mount a long-term\r\nwar,\" while 24 percent favored limiting retaliation to punishing the specific\r\ngroups responsible for the attacks. In contrast, \"women are evenly divided--\r\nwith 42 percent favoring each option.\" Noting that \"women's support for\r\nwar is much more conditional than that of men,\" Gallup reports that though\r\n88 percent of women favored taking retaliatory military action, that number\r\ndropped to 55 percent if 1,000 American troops would be killed (76 percent\r\nof men would support a war under these circumstances).\r\n<\/p>

Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee proportional\r\nrepresentation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently pro-war and\r\nanti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators (e.g., Mona\r\nCharen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity-- Washington\r\nTimes<\/b>, 10\/18\/01). But given the gender differences suggested by polling,\r\nmore women on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the conventional\r\nwisdom that all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for an open-ended\r\nwar.\r\n<\/p>

Even, however, if one accepts the idea that the public overwhelmingly\r\nfavors war, the task of journalism is to remain independent and to ask\r\ntough questions of policy makers. After all, American history includes\r\nmany official policies that were popular in their time, but which today\r\nare viewed as disasters. Wouldn't the country have been better off if journalists\r\nhad provided a stronger, more abiding challenge to the consensus that supported\r\nVietnam, or the internment of Japanese-Americans?\r\n<\/p>

More than any other newspapers, the New York Times<\/b> and the Washington\r\nPost<\/b>-- with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in\r\nU.S. newsrooms-- have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views\r\non how to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose\r\nof the op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions,\r\nboth papers failed their readers at a crucial time.\r\n<\/p>

ACTION:<\/b> Please urge the Washington Post<\/b> and the New\r\nYork Times<\/b> to broaden the range of debate on their op-ed pages about\r\nthe U.S. war in Afghanistan.\r\n<\/p>

CONTACT:<\/b>\r\n
New York Times<\/b>\r\n
Terry A. Tang, Op-Ed Page Editor\r\n<\/p>

Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS\r\n<\/p>

Washington Post<\/b>\r\n
Michael Getler, Ombudsman\r\n
ombudsman@washpost.com\r\n
(202) 334-7582\r\n<\/p>

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously\r\nif you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org\r\nwith\r\nyour correspondence. \r\n<\/p>

<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"fair@fair.org","link":"http:\/\/www.fair.org\/activism\/nyt-wp-opeds.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"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. A total of 44 columns in the NY Times and Washington Post clearly stressed a military response, against only two columns stressing non-military solutions. Given the choice between a either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial of those responsible, 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.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/11\/nyt-wp-opeds.html","filesize":"7.7 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/11\/12642.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}