Jerry Medler, an associate professor of political science, will be one of the speakers at today’s “After September 11” teach-in sponsored by the political science department and ASUO. Medler, who is currently teaching a class on the role of mass media in American politics, will speak on press coverage of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Medler spoke with the Emerald in a Q&A session about his presentation. His words have been edited for brevity and clarity.
How difficult is it for reporters to gather information in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
There are lots of people on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but their positions from a journalistic perspective are compromised. I don’t think they are lying, and I don’t think they are being fed a line, but they are constrained or managed in such a way that they are not getting any useful information. My favorite coverage is of the ground troops maneuvering in northern Afghanistan. The reporters don’t say how they get their information, but they don’t deny it either. In their stories, there is usually a phrase built into a sentence in the middle of the third paragraph that says ‘by satellite telephone.’
So, these journalists are sitting in some reasonably air-conditioned, safe-drinking-water locale, and that is not to say that they are either safe or unhappy, but they are certainly not at the front. At the end of the day, the warlord of the Northern Alliance takes the satellite phone the reporters have given him, dials the number and tells the reporters what wonderful things the Northern Alliance did that day. Some people actually use an Afghanistan byline, yet I honestly don’t know what that means. I assume it means they are standing inside the border. I assume they are probably under the purview of the Northern Alliance or the American military.
I think there have been some cases, although very few, where some people have been guests of the Taliban. But there has been very, very little on the ground reporting. But, it has been very hard. I can’t tell where this information is coming from. But it is clear that this information is second- and third-hand. It is reports on reports, basically.
Should people be skeptical of this information?
I wouldn’t give a nickel for a bushel of this kind of information — particularly since we know the Bush administration is trying to stall the Northern Alliance, and the Northern Alliance is desperate for the air coverage that makes their job viable. So, when everybody has a vested political interest in how things are going, you can expect these people will tell us how its going when it is most appropriate for their needs. I can’t imagine Northern Alliance leadership reporting they had a bad day. All of those reports have been positive, and they have all been implying that as soon as those American pilots get off the USS Kitty Hawk and drop some bombs, we will be there mopping up.
Is this coverage helpful or harmful?
I don’t consider that there is any coverage. I see it as a zero. What the reporters are doing is very creative — they are pretending they are getting coverage. They are doing the best you can ever imagine, given the conditions they are working with. But, I think they are doing a disservice to everyone involved because they don’t have any information. The news providers are putting these ersatz stories together to make it look like there are reporters on the ground. You have to read very closely and suspiciously to even figure out there is nobody there.