|
|
May 1, 2004
Of Course Ted Koppel Was Making a Political Statement. So What?Time for my political statement on Nightline's toll of the fallen last night.Part I: Everyone’s Making Political Statements. Despite what he said about it, Ted Koppel and Nightline were making a political statement last night by reading the names of “the fallen” in Iraq. And there is nothing wrong with that— although it is risky because many will object. (Koppel: “I didn’t want it to be seen in any fashion as a political gesture.”) By refusing to air the show, (Koppel said it was the first time that had ever happened) Sinclair Broadcasting, the country’s largest owner of television stations, was making a political statement right back. (“The action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.”) Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, either, although it is risky and many will object. Senator John McCain proved to be one. It was a political statement when he publicly objected to Sinclair’s decision (“I find deeply offensive Sinclair’s objection to Nightline’s intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.”) Sinclair made a political statement by replying. (“In no way was our decision intended to show any disrespect to the brave members of our military.”) It was a political statement when ABC News said it disagreed with Sinclair’s decision. (“The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country.”) It was a political statement when the Center for American Progress, in its weblog, highlighted some of Sinclair’s past actions. (“The record shows that Sinclair media has repeatedly leveraged its control over the airwaves to manipulate public opinion in favor of President Bush’s right-wing agenda.”) From the New York Daily News: “ABC News will simulcast the show on its Jumbotron in Times Square, and ABC Radio will air excerpts.” That was a political statement by the network. When, according to blogger Law Dork, Conan O’Brien on NBC Friday night announced… … that “Nightline” was not being shown in seven cities tonight because the Sinclair Group thought Ted Koppel’s reading of the names of service members killed in Iraq was a sweeps-week stunt. Conan, however, then had his announcer, Joel, read the names of several programs broadcast by the Sinclair Group, including many Maury Povich shows about “he’s not my baby’s daddy,” Temptation Island, and any number of Jerry Springer shows.” … that was O’Brien’s political statement. Law Dork, on his other blog, DeNovo, made his own political statement: “Without some action taken to stop this sort of censorship, what will happen next?” According to a participant’s account that Atrios ran as news, protestors were making a political statement Friday night in front of Sinclair’s Ohio headquarters: “Several people carried signs and got a solid response from rush hour traffic with waves and honks— ‘Why is ABC 6 afraid of Ted Koppel?’ and ‘Censorship is UnAmerican’ were on two of them.” (And at least 281 comments—political statements—were received at Eschaton under that item.) In a political statement, Ohio News Network, a cable channel, explained why it decided to carry the Nightline broadcast in a special arrangement: Sinclair says the broadcast is a political statement disguised as news, meaning ABC viewers in Columbus would not get to see the program. Blogger Cable Newser (“This Is My Boiling Point”) makes his own political statement: I headed up I-83 to Hunt Valley this afternoon. You can see the Sinclair building from the interstate exit. I pulled past the “No Trespassing” sign and dropped off my posters. Other messages included “737 Americans have died in Iraq: Sorry it’s not ‘good news.’” I dropped off the posters in the parking lot. I didn’t think they’d be too friendly inside. Apparently it was only a coincidence that two police cars tailed me as I headed back onto the highway. When, under the heading “Republican Values,” Atrios re-published accounts from the Baltimore Sun and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting on the 1996 arrest of Sinclair boss David D. Smith (“arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday…”) Atrios was making a political statement. Now Koppel: My executive producer Leroy Sievers remembered, and asked me if I remembered and I did, a two-page spread in Life magazine back in 1969 on the Vietnam war dead for one week and the impact; he reminded me of the impact that that had had. And said, why don’t we try to do something similar? They were deciding, right then, to make a political statement, which they hoped would have impact. And when Robert Cox of the The National Debate went back to ‘69 and reviewed what was happening in Vietnam, and at home, including the turns in the war at that time… The “impact” of the Life magazine “ONE WEEK’S TOLL” was to crystalize opposition to the war in the wake the high casualties taken at Ap Bia mountain. The context of Koppel’s “tribute” mirrors those events - it is the one year anniversary of President Bush declaring the end of “major combat operations” in Iraq, Senator Kennedy recently called Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam”, the U.S. is coming off a particularly bloody battle in Fallujah and opinion polls show a decline in support for the War in Iraq. … Cox was making his political statement. So when Jeff Goldstein of protein wisdom published his “interview” with Koppel…. Ted Koppel: “…Why, in heaven’s name, should one not be able to look at the faces and hear the names and see the ages of those young people who are not coming back alive and feel somehow ennobled by the fact that they were willing to give up their lives for something that is in the national interest of all of us?” … he was cleary using satire to make a political statement. And when Jeff Jarvis objected and told us what Nightline’s decision really means… It means: Let’s hit the people over the head with what we think they’re ignoring; let’s add it up for them; let’s rub their noses in the enormity of it; let’s remind them of a story nearly ignored. But the Iraq war is hardly ignored. We don’t need Koppel to bring our attention to the danger and death there. … Jarvis—by intepreting intent—was making a political statement. Finally, when Ted Koppel ended his show last night choosing this rationale… “The reading tonight of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war, nor was it meant as an endorsement. Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war. I’m not. But that’s beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize, or debate our leaders’ policies. Or, for that matter, the policies of those who would like to become our leaders. … that was Koppel explaining his political statement. Part II: What the Nightline Statement Said. I watched Nightline last night. It made me appreciate what the men and women of the United States military do. Not for the first time, just a little more… sharply. Certainly Koppel, an intelligent man willing to credit you and I with some intelligence, wasn’t trying to inform me that all these people have died. He knows I know that. Nor was he “rubbing it in my face,” as I heard some people say. And aside from latest casualties (reported on air), the Nightline program Friday night had no “news” value. It was not a news program, really. We need another category of broadcasting to account for it. Trouble is, there is no such category that has broad legitimacy. This was one factor in the immediate ignition when Nightline’s plans became known. For Ted Koppel wanted to make an statement, which I intend to call “political”—even though it wasn’t anti-war or pro-war—and he did it by reading on national television the names of all soldiers killed on duty in Iraq since the war began. If you like bloggers with positions on things, then my position is: Koppel was right to make his statement, wrong to say he wasn’t doing just that. But there’s a reason he found himself in a bind over Nightline’s plans, and it’s worth thinking about. Koppel and his producers took a kind of political action Friday night. But the language they have for explaining that action does a pitiful job. And so they are attacked for “being political,” and hypocritical— and their replies to the charge only compound the original error. The press in general, and Koppel in a painfully real way this week, have over the years learned to describe themselves as political innocents, people who are without a politics that enters into the news. (I have also called this general philosophy the View From Nowhere.) So I don’t disagree with Jeff Jarvis when he writes: “Koppel says he wasn’t making a political statement. That’s what’s dishonest about it.” Political innocence is performed during controversies like this. The ceremony, conducted by journalists in their self explanations, presents a narrow and formulaic view of political life— and of statement making. You can hear it perfectly in one part of Koppel’s closer Friday. “”The reading tonight of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war, nor was it meant as an endorsement.” The trouble with this kind of explanation, even when true, is that it only talks about the politics that isn’t going on— we’re neither this nor that. But Koppel talked about the politics that is going on, the political statement he fully intended, at the close of the broadcast. You want to know what his agenda is? Here are the words he spoke about it: “I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize, or debate our leaders’ policies.” I am opposed… That’s a political gesture he’s describing, and it even sounds like one. What I think he meant by it was: “I am using this program, ABC’s Nightline, in opposition to the way daily politics and daily journalism dull us to what’s happening on a human level. I am also using this program, Nightline, in opposition to the way wartime pressures close down debate, and constrict the space of honest reflection. My purpose is not to inform or persuade, it is to invite reflection, a pause to re-think the meaning of 721 dead in Iraq. Yes, it’s a political statement, but it is not a politicized view of the war we undertake tonight.” After Matter: Notes, Reactions & Links… Fox News host Chris Wallace (formerly of ABC) says his network will air a special program responding to Nightline’s: After listening to all the debate, then watching the show, we think the folks at ‘Nightline’ made a mistake this week, listing all the brave men and women who have died in Iraq, but without providing the context of what they went half way around the world to do. Obviously a political statement from Fox. Blogger Tacitus, a supporter of the US action in Iraq, finds meaning in the faces and names flashed on Nightline: As I write this, Nightline just flashed, together, the photographs of the two dead in Iraq whom I knew from younger days: Kim Hampton and Eric Paliwoda. I didn’t realize they were killed sequentially. They fell in the line of duty, on the field of battle, and there is honor in their lives and deaths. What remains is for us to impart honor to the cause in which they served. I speak not of the defense of the United States: this is forever honorable, and right. I speak of the creation of a just Iraq. This would be an Iraq in which jihadis do not walk free, in which Ba’athist generals no longer rule, and in which civil war is not the near-inevitable future. That this Iraq does not exist, and will not exist because of our choices, means we have profoundly dishonored our dead there. They deserve better: something right, and lasting. It is hard to see those faces, those young faces, among the roll call of the dead. I look at them, and it strikes me that in walking away from Fallujah, we are walking away from their graves; leaving their light and memory to the cruel care of those who killed them. Two PressThink posts that bear on this one: Players: Toward a More Honest Job Description For the Political Press. (Argues that the press is a player that thinks it cannot describe itself that way.) Maybe Media Bias Has Become a Dumb Debate. (Explains a critical distinction typically ignored in these debates: the difference between a political and a politicized view.) Chicago Sun Times columnist Mark Steyn, Don’t count on Koppel for whole war story. Poynter’s Al Tomkins, interview with Koppel defending “The Fallen.” Those with a deep interest in the problems with news coverage of Iraq ought to read Peter Levine, who asks: why do we care about press coverage of Iraq? (Yes, he has answers.) Money quote: “we need to decide what obligations we have as citizens, in order to decide what role our press should play, in order to assess the performance of the press in the Iraq war.” Levine is a political philosopher who blogs. He and colleagues have also put together a new resource site: The War, the Press, and Democracy. Stephen Waters, Ted Koppel Needs a Blog: “Koppel’s program can exert a potent and powerful educational influence on people. Someone with that power owes it to the audience to test the soundness of what is presented. How do you sift out the questionable ideas and go with the best?” From the comments at Jeff Goldstein’s protein wisdom. For those who don’t agree with what Nightline is doing: After watching Nightline Friday, Robert Cox at the National Debate reflects: “Perhaps the most interesting thing came in Koppel’s closing remarks when he stated that ‘some of you believe that I am against the war…I am not.’ I want to ponder that for a bit before commenting. I will say this, although I believe my criticism over the past week has been valid, and ABC News could have handled the situation much better, I felt a twinge of guilt. My sense that whatever else was going on with the powers that be at ABC this past week, Ted Koppel has a sincere respect for those who gave their lives.” Moving the Numbers: More on Koppel’s agenda from Tim Graham at National Review’s Corner: “This show is designed to goose the poll numbers on that question ‘Has Iraq been worth the cost?’ Koppel wants you to say ‘no.’” Writing on Tacitus, Harley points to Sinclair Broadcasting’s news philosophy: “they think local news broadcasts are too expensive and a thing of the past and too expensive. So, if you happen to live in a Sinclair market, you’ll get about seven minutes from the local news team. Then a commercial break. And then a new anchor on a similar set will take over, presenting national and international news, and pretending all the while to be part of the local team. Except he won’t be. He’ll be working out of ‘Central Casting’ at the company’s national headquarters, doling out the bulk of the news to Sinclair stations all over the country.” Twisted Chick @ livejournal on an American tradition: (Thanks, Ellen Nagler.) We remember them by name. They’re not anonymous. Nobody who dies while serving in the military is anonymous. They are not living private lives, but official ones; their deaths are public whether they occur at the point of a sabre during Pickett’s Charge or under napalm or on a land mine in Vietnam or as a result of a British raid on a settlement in 1779. We remember them by name. We know them… We are not borne down by the weight of our history yet, as older countries may be, but still new enough that every one of those names matters. Blog on the Run’s Lex Alexander reflects at length on Sinclair’s decision and the reaction in Blogistan: “this week’s episode illustrates only one way in which a segment of the blogosphere can lay some serious jujitsu on a political action in a very short time.” (via Ed Cone.) (May 3) After accusations that Nightline was after ratings during “sweeps week,” The Drudge Report has figures confirming what anyone who knows television should have known: reading the names of the dead is not a winner. Drudge: NIGHTLINE RATINGS DOWN IN MAJOR CITIES WITH DEATH LIST; LOSES AUDIENCE FROM PREVIOUS FRIDAY WITH READING OF IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES… But wait a minute: Lisa Morales in the Washington Post (May 4): “ABC News’s Nightline scored nearly 30 percent more viewers on Friday night than it did the rest of last week, according to preliminary numbers.”
Posted by Jay Rosen at May 1, 2004 12:14 PM
Comments
I Think it would have been better done if aired during Memorial Day weekend. Since it was done for Sweeps Week, I wonder if ratings came in to justify it all commercially. Mike, May is Sweeps MONTH. The entire month. From Nielsen media: "The standard sweep months include November, February, May and July of each year." The full schedule is here. And do you honestly think that this broadcast was calculated to bring in more viewers? Without the controversy created by Sinclair's decision, it would have been remarkably low-rated. Typically, ratings stunts involve piles of money or naked bodies. Not dead ones. Seems to me there is a good deal of political debate and capitalism alive and well in "the media". In fact, I find the decision by Sinclair not to carry Nightline, whether I agree with it or not, an incredible affirmation that dissent and opposition is fiesty with a big chip on its shoulder. Of course, we'll see more inspired intellectual political debate on this topic reminiscent of Tim Robbins complaining from the National Press Club podium that his free speech rights were being attacked. Posted by: Tim at May 1, 2004 1:46 PM | Permalink Jay, Do you see a difference between a journalist like Koppel making a political statement (while denying that he is doing so), and a politician like John McCain making a political statement? Of course politicians and political bloggers make political statements. I thought that journalists weren't supposed to -- or at the very least, that they were ethically required to label them as such. Patterico, you can't be that naive. Every decision an editor makes about what stories run, the position of the story on the page or within the paper; all of it is political in one sense. Suppose my local paper plays up the fact that there have been a rash of car crashes caused by racing on our streets, and there's a bill in our legislature to put vans with cameras on those streets which are amenable to speeding: is that not political? Posted by: Linkmeister at May 1, 2004 2:15 PM | Permalink If you read my blog you know that I find many editorial decisions openly political. However, the political nature of journalistic decisions is generally denied (often unconvincingly) by the journalists who make them -- Koppel's denial being a typical example. My comment was directed at Jay's "So what?" attitude. There is a difference between saying, on one hand: Editorial decisions inevitably have a political component; journalists should try to minimize this, but we should remember that they are human beings.and saying, on the other hand: Of course journalists make political statements. So what?I find this latter formulation a little surprising in its explicit argument that journalists are justified in making political statements. It reminds me a little of Sen. Chuck Schumer's argument that the Senate's "advise and consent" role in judicial appointments should take political considerations into account. Yes, it's always been done, but (up until now) it's always been denied. Ok, then I misunderstood. Posted by: Linkmeister at May 1, 2004 3:10 PM | Permalink IT'S NOT THE PLACE OF THE "OBJECTIVE" MEDIA TO BE MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT.....This is why journalists are held in low regard across the nation Posted by: Trump at May 1, 2004 4:32 PM | Permalink Jay -- Interestingly I had posted late last night about this on De Novo (as well as Law Dork), and on De Novo I asked specifically about your opinions on this. Thanks, they -- as I expected -- paint a very compelling picture (although not irrebuttable) in support of your notion that journalistic decisions are inherently political. That notwithstanding, it doesn't change my position that what Sinclair did was wrong -- both in terms of ensuring journalistic freedom and integrity and as a business decision. Posted by: Chris Geidner at May 1, 2004 5:15 PM | Permalink Absolutely, Chris. Sinclair took a decision: to make a political statement out of the Koppel broadcast, and when it did that, Sinclair ran the risk of being wrong. When you have the right to make a political statement, it means you can make the wrong statement. I didn't see that invite but I will check it. More later, in part two of the post. Jay, And you make a political statement by listing the statements and actions of others and judging them to be "political statements." And I make a political statement by pointing this out. And then I ask, good grief, what is the point of your exercise? My last political statement is to say that affecting a pose of "above it all" detachment is here a moral dodge. So, who has the better argument? Posted by: Nash at May 1, 2004 5:43 PM | Permalink I don't know what above it all you mean. I think Koppel was right to do the broadcast. Some think he was wrong. I think Koppel was wrong to say: this is not political statement. Some people--including Koppel, and I'm sure a good number of journalists--think he was right. I think Sinclair Broadcasting was wrong in the statements it made and the actions it took, which were political statements. Obviously they and many who support them disagree with me. They think Sinclair was right. So which issue am I ducking? Now your first point, "what is the point of pointing all this out?" is a good one. I think there are answers to that, however. Check back later and I may have some. "What issue am I dodging?" The issue that you're dodging is that, by lying about what he was trying to do, Koppel made his actions indefensible. If he had said "we here at Nightline were opposed to removing Saddam from power, and are opposed to the effort to turn Iraq into a decent country instead of yet another Arab dictatorship, and so we're showing all the servicemembers who have died because of President Bush's actions, in the hopes that this will hurt his efforts in Iraq", then we could argue about what he did, with there being two valid sides. Since he's a dishonest sleazeball trying to push that agenda while pretending he's doing nothing of the sort, the only way you can defend him is by claiming that it's good to try to lie to, cheat, and defraud the American people. Sorry, I don't find that a justifiable point of view. If, in a democratic polity, you can't advance your agenda honestly, then it SHOULD lose. Posted by: Greg D at May 1, 2004 6:36 PM | Permalink Let me put the question a different way, Jay: We proponents of what you call the "liberal media thesis" assert that journalists commonly 1) make liberal political statements, while 2) denying that they are doing so. We believe that the denials are often sincere, though sometimes they are not. Nevertheless, even the sincere denials are (in our view) mostly wrong. To people like me, Koppel's example is simply one example of what we believe is a common phenomenon. You agree that Koppel made a political statement. Presumably, you agree that it was a liberal political statement -- a statement against the Iraq war. Koppel denied that he was doing so -- and he no doubt believed his denial was sincere. Yet you agree that his denial was not credible. Yet your reaction is "so what?" -- and this surprises me. I would think that opponents of the "liberal media thesis" would be eager to argue that Koppel's liberal political statement is an isolated case. That political statements -- especially liberal political statements -- are the exception rather than the rule. That when they occur, they are generally labeled as political statements. Doesn't a "so what?" attitude convey the opposite: the attitude that journalists commonly make political statements that are not labeled as such? And if this is your attitude, what does that say about your feelings regarding the so-called "liberal media thesis"? Jay, When I typed that comment, I hadn't seen your postscript, in which you assert that Koppel's statement was not anti-war. Hmm. What, then, do you think accounts for his failure to read the names of those killed in Afghanistan? And don't tell me it was time constraints -- the program was expanded 10 minutes to read the names of non-combatant deaths in Iraq. This could have been done for combatant deaths in Afghanistan -- a war with which many more people agree (including Koppel, I bet). Don't you think it's at least a plausible interpretation of his broadcast that it was an anti-war statement? Given the timing of the broadcast (sweeps week instead of Memorial Day) and the content (Iraq deaths included, Afghanistan deaths omitted), I don't think it can be plausibly seen as a pro-war statement. Why is it, do you think, that liberal bias is so often a plausible interpretation of mainstream media motivations -- whereas conservative bias is generally an implausible interpretation? This is actually pretty interesting, in that Koppel's action and defenses are almost a case-study of the means by which the practice of journalism itself can have an intrinsic political aspect. That is, he's taken it to the limit, to extremes. "I'm just reading a list of names. That's objective. It's a fact. These people were US soldiers killed in Iraq. I'm reporting it. ..." And the Insta-chorus screams CONTEXT. They are allowed to know, here, that a plain fact, even though it is a fact, has implications. They shout from the rooftops, WHY DIDN'T YOU ADD THESE FACTS, which favor their desired emotional perspective. That's what the argument is, over the word "political" - the potential implications, and whether one is to take them into account. Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at May 1, 2004 8:18 PM | Permalink Nightline might have had a more useful topic: In his rationale said, "I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way."1 A fine sentiment, but in it Koppel made at least three misjudgments. He presumed:
"Of course Ted Koppel Was Making a Political Statement. So What?" What? The fact that he's said "oh no, I'm not making a political statement! Not at all!" seems like a "what" to me. Posted by: Hatter at May 1, 2004 11:57 PM | Permalink Me too, hatter. That's why I wrote so much about his denial, and why it happened, and what it means. Patterico asks: "Don't you think it's at least a plausible interpretation of his broadcast that it was an anti-war statement?" I think many people will read it that way. Koppel knew they would read it that way. I also think Koppel's point is far subtler than most interpretations have it. Just because a broadcast is a "statement" doesn't mean it fits into our simplified catgeories for political statement making. I think Koppel's point (to you, Patterico, and Robert Cox too) went something like this: If American support for the war cannot survive reading on Nightline the names of the 721 who have died in that war, then supporters of the war, and the officials fighting it, might well ask themselves whether they have fully prepared the country for the much longer war ahead. And so on the air that night he said: "...when the American people fully understand the cause for which our troops are fighting, and when they accept that it is essential to our national welfare and security, no burden is too heavy, no cost is too high." Only a guess, but I doubt very much that Koppel is personally against the war. Note that the relevant word here is not exactly political but partisan. Koppel is being accused of making a partisan statement, of favoring one side of an internal conflict. His response is claiming he's making a NONPARTISAN political (in the sense of "civic society") statement. Now the argument is whether one believes such a thing is possible, and whether one believes Koppel. Let's remember what's said against him for the next round of "Support The Troops". Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at May 2, 2004 12:21 AM | Permalink The ultimate stupidity of this "controversy" is that images of sacrifice actually increase support for war. Rather than a political rorschach test, revealing pro-war or anti-war subjective biases, the nightline list and the photos of flag-draped coffins have one implicit function: to reinforce ritual of sacrifice that feeds the cycle of violence. Get a clue! Posted by: seenthat at May 2, 2004 1:16 AM | Permalink
No ads ran during the show, just PSAs, but people are still convinced it is about ratings (I don't think the show will even be counted in Nightline's sweeps ratings). I wish Nightline had more shows questioning Bush's push for war before it started and more people on who were opposed to the war. Posted by: Steve Rhodes at May 2, 2004 1:55 AM | Permalink " Koppel explicitly said he did not oppose the war. Yet many still refuse to believe him." That's because our IQ's are above room temperature (in degrees Centigrade). If you really can't figure out why that is, you need to get out of your left-wing cocoon, and at least VISIT the real world once in a while. Posted by: Greg D at May 2, 2004 5:26 AM | Permalink Jay, I am sure that US support for the reconstruction in Iraq will survive Koppel's grandstanding ploy. So? It will survive the ranting and raving on "Indymedia". Does that mean they're not political, or partisan? 'And so on the air that night he said: "...when the American people fully understand the cause for which our troops are fighting, and when they accept that it is essential to our national welfare and security, no burden is too heavy, no cost is too high." Only a guess, but I doubt very much that Koppel is personally against the war. ' Then he's clueless. He didn't ever try to do that, did he? Posted by: Greg D at May 2, 2004 5:33 AM | Permalink Seth: your comments on partisan vs. political help clarify things. Thanks. I also think the "it's sweeps month" and "it's a rating ploy" are phony arguments, with an explanatory power of zero. No one who knows commercial television and patterns in ratings would think this program an audience winner. The appeal of these arguments is the pseudo-insider gloss: "did you know it's sweeps month? heh heh...what does that say?" GregD: on Nightline helping viewers fully understand the war... If you ranked all news programs across the major networks on the amount of time spent on Iraq since the war began, I am quite sure you would find Nightline at the top. (No, I haven't done the research, just guessing.) The program has virtually become a nightly half hour on Iraq and related themes. Surely this counts for something in judging what Koppel is up to. Amazing that this topic has generated any controversy at all. Argue all you want about the political implications (or Koppel's hidden motives, which are ultimately irrelevant), but the broadcast made only one journalistic statement: These deaths are worthy of notice. No one even argues with that assertion. Beyond that, and Koppel's brief comments, the broadcast was as pure an example of "just-the-facts" reporting as exists on this planet. People are free to make of it what they will, or ignore it altogether. Posted by: David Crisp at May 2, 2004 12:03 PM | Permalink "Facts are nothing without their nuance, sir" - Norman Mailer Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at May 2, 2004 12:18 PM | Permalink Why did Koppel not show pictures and read names of the dead in Afghanistan? You mean besides the obvious fact that this episode of Nightline observed the one-year anniversary of the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq? Or maybe, just maybe, because there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the war in Iraq and the ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. Simply throwing a blanket over the two countries and declaring that they are both fronts in the ongoing "war on terror" does not make it true. If Ted Koppel was making a political statement by reading the names of the soldiers who have died in Iraq, was it a pro-war or anti-war statement? Reading the names of the war dead could be interpreted as either a pro-war stand honoring their sacrifice in a just war or an anti-war stand lamenting their loss in an unjust one. A reasonable argument could be made for either side. For this reason, I think it's unfair to describe the show as a political statement, and it feeds the demonstrably false accusation that Koppel is a partisan journalist. Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead at May 2, 2004 1:07 PM | Permalink Well, this is the part I don't trust, the anti-empiricism in some reactions: Don't look at the broadcast, look at Afghanistan. That will tell you what's going on. Don't look at the broadcast, look at the sweeps. That tells all. Don't look at the broadcast, look at the producer's comments claiming to be unaware of the sweeps. That really tells all. Don't look at the broadcast, look at Life Magazine from 35 years ago. That will tell you what this is about. Don't look at the broadcast, look at the dynamics of anti-war sentiment during the Vietnam era. That will tell you. Don't look at the broadcast, look at the "liberal media" thesis. That tells you. Jay, Your word-parsing puts me in the strange position of defending Ted Koppel. As Seth notes, there are two ways to look at the word "political" -- 1) relating to the body politic, or 2) motivated by partisan feeling. I initially read your post as using definition #2. I don't think it was unfair to read it this way, as the word is commonly used this way in discussions of potential media bias. You now say that you were using definition #1 instead, and I take you at your word. But if that's your definition, then I think it was unfair for you to criticize Koppel, because I think it's perfectly clear that Koppel was using definition #2. I believe that Ted Koppel would agree that he was making a political statement in the sense of a statement that relates to the body politic. As I understood his denial, he was denying that he was making a *partisan* statement. He felt that people had accused him of opposing the war, and he denied that. He denied partisanship. Doesn't that seem clear? If I'm right about this -- and if you don't feel that Koppel was being partisan -- then I think you shouldn't criticize him for denying that he was making a "political statement." He simply wasn't parsing the word the way you are -- he was using the word as it is commonly understood in these sorts of discussions. So... Does anyone who read this know Ted Koppel? Perhaps you could ask him to read this. I'd love to have him post his thoughts as he read the initial essay, the aftermath, and the comments thread. Jay, You are the best for raising the issue this way. Great discussion. I have my own views on "The Fallen" and anyone who cares to can read them on my site so I won't expand on them here (plus Jay has already linked to me, above). I would, however, like to add an element to the discussion that has been missing. In 1969, when Life magazine published the article that Koppel cited as the inspiration for "The Fallen", it would have been unimagineable for a network news anchor to be held accountable for a broadcast the way Koppel has been held accountable for "The Fallen" - on cable news channels, on talk radio, on the Internet as well as media and opinion columnists in tradional newspapers. It is significant that Koppel felt compelled to address the "push back" at the beginning and end of the broadcast. It MEANS something. I am just not sure what it is. Posted by: Robert Cox at May 2, 2004 4:27 PM | Permalink Patterico: I think many interpretations of Koppel's actions are plausible and sustained by what we know. I don't have to be wrong for you to be right. My own interpretation is summed up in the last line of the post: "Yes, it's a political statement, but it is not a politicized view of the war we take tonight." This is what he should have said, I believe. Yeah, you're right... to most people political means aligned with a party one way or another. I think Koppel was wrong on this one precisely because he relied on a far too conventional understanding of "the political" when he said that his show was not a statement or gesture that should be interpreted as any of that. He ends up agreeing with his critics that he has no right to make a "statement" with his program-- of any kind. This is not wise. It is not accurate. It's not journalism. It's not what Koppel is about. And it certainly isn't the future of television news. Moreover, there aren't too many left who believe the "no politics here" pledge. Do you? But there's another point my post was trying to make, Patterico. Much simpler. Hey, we're all making political statements here. I tried to document the diverse range of actions taken and statements made about this one evening's broadcast-- from Senate figures expressing outrage to interest groups getting involved (CAP) to marchers in a Ohio drizzle, reporters on the Washington Post, Instapundit, Blog on the Run. Look across all those contributions--across links--and what do you see? Lots of people making political statements. I believe the proper place for a Ted Koppel is: in that conversation with us, one political speaker among others. He makes statements, Nightline does, Sinclair does, McCain does-- and all of us answer back. As for what he really, really meant Friday, we are free to argue about that. Let me remind you of one thing Koppel said, which I have said is a loser: "I didn't want it to be seen in any fashion as a political gesture." But let me ask you, Patterico but others too: what do you think is the future for that kind of statement? I think it depends on what the definition of "political" is. I think we all make political statements, in the "body politic" sense and in the partisan sense. That includes journalists. But I think journalists, while they cannot avoid political statements in the "body politic" sense (nor should they), should try to avoid partisan political statements. (I think that separates them from politicians and bloggers.) I think they feel duty-bound to avoid such partisan political statements. That is why, when they do make such statements (and they do), they twist themselves into pretzels denying that that's what they're doing. With all due respect, Jay, that advice is about as good as telling Dan Rather to tell his audience "I am a biased journalist, but that's because true objectivety is impossible and everything we report is influenced by subtle but real bias." The only five words anyone would hear: "I am a biased journalist." Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead at May 2, 2004 5:57 PM | Permalink I'm curious. If Koppel was making a PARTISAN statement by reading the list of military KIA from Iraq: What PARTISAN statement was made during the 9/11 anniversary by reading the list of those killed? What PARTISAN statement is made by listing the names of those that died from AIDS in a big quilt? Can these be political statements, but not partisan? Is there a difference between awareness, education and making a statement? Posted by: Tim at May 2, 2004 6:41 PM | Permalink The argument that Koppel was making a purely partisan statement--and making his anti-war stance known by reading the names Friday night--does not withstand an honest viewing of the program. Ask Robert Cox for his testimony on that. People will continue to make that argument, however. It is part of our partisan-ese to do so. Indeed, many who spoke out Thursday and Friday found suitable the evidence for malicious and partisan intent before they saw what Koppel and team had actually produced. How is this possible? Because they were judging Koppel and Nightline by their ideas and intentions, along with the statements Ted and company made about those intentions. Here, I have argued, Koppel was at a disadvantage; he had to speak a language that doesn't work. It's remarkable to me what confidence some blogging this show in describing how Kopppel thinks, and locating his priorities. The biggest influence on his political thinking has been his experience as a journalist. But second after that is Henry Kissinger. Koppel's fascination with Kissinger-style realism in world affairs, and with the Doctor himself (who has been on Nightline countless times) is a matter of public record. He admits it in interviews. Koppel's personal obsession, intellectually and as a journalist, is the international arena, the affairs of nations, and his ideology, so far as I have been able to tell, might be called "extreme realism," bordering on cynicism about what governments will say on the one hand, and do on the other. (He is known to find domestic politics, especially party politics, insanely boring.) The biggest error you could make in divining his intentions, especially if you think ill of those intentions, is to underestimate Koppel's understanding of himself, his program, the media, the foreign policy process and the dynamic of deadly conflicts in our world. On this subject, I recommend to all a stop at Robert Cox's post with excerpts from an interview Koppel gave to fellow newsman Bernard Kalb. Cox's conclusion: "My sense is that Koppel has mixed emotions - he supports the troops but he distrusts the Bush administration (as he would distrust any government)." My sense is a bit different. One is speculating, of course, but I think Koppel believes American military action was needed to oust Saddam. He would never be in favor of withdrawal right now. He also believes the Bush Administration was willing to present a phony case for the war, avoiding the much harder work of preparing the nation for sacrifice. Jay, that's a fascinating and nuanced take on the event. Query: Following the ideas you present, especially "extreme realism", perhaps Koppel knows exactly how the controversy around his program was and is fated to unfold, and what words he's expected to mouth in the rhetoric of political vs. partisan? Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at May 2, 2004 10:38 PM | Permalink Statement or no statement, the airing of the photographs and of the names and ages was an honorable tribute. The hastily announced timing of the tribute was used during one of most violent periods of the war, was used after being inspired by the Life tribute that helped crystallize contempt for the Vietnam war, despite the producer saying he did not know when sweeps was, this Nightline episode appeared on the brink of sweeps week. What I want Ted Koppel to explain is why was this not aired on Memorial day? His response would be telling. Anyone who has watched Nightline for the last decade will have noticed the precipitous decline into partisan reporting over the last several months. Frontline, Nightline and the Daily Show, 3 of my favorite programs that are almost unwatchable, and I am a Democrat. Posted by: Cog at May 2, 2004 11:09 PM | Permalink Jay, That seems to me to assert that wartime pressures have indeed closed down debate and constricted the space of honest reflection. It would seem to me that in the case of the Iraq war just the opposite is the reality. Debate is rampant on this issue throughout the land from the national campaigns and the big media right down to little entries on livejournal. I don't think a war has ever been debated this much this early or this intently. The propostion that debate has been circumscribed or dissent crushed or any one of a hundred other short-hand metaphors for the situation is, to my mind, false and can be shown to be false by piling up the newspapers, videotapes, television programs, books, blog postings and what have you. What you might be trying to say or observe is that the debate has been polarized early on and in an extreme way. And if that is the case I will agree that I have never seen a national debate on an issue polarized so early and so intensely. Perhaps we need more reflection, but in a way, we have time to reflect daily. What occurs from that reflection? In general, very little in terms of altering the initial positions. If anything, I think that reflection tends only, in this atmosphere, to harden the positions already taken. The debate will go on and it will get wilder and more intense between those who hold opposing positons, but don't look for either side to alter their positions based on something brought out by the other side. We are beyond that now. At the same time, to return to my initial point, I don't think it can be shown that debate is being closed down by wartime pressures at this time. Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at May 3, 2004 4:02 AM | Permalink 'NIGHTLINE' RATINGS DOWN IN MAJOR CITIES WITH DEATH LIST; LOSES AUDIENCE FROM PREVIOUS FRIDAY WITH READING OF IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES... DEVELOPING... ABCNEWS SPECIAL HITS 9 SHARE IN NYC [FLAT FROM PREVIOUS WEEK]; 14 SHARE IN L.A.; 11 SHARE CHICAGO [DOWN FROM 15 SHARE PREVIOUS FRIDAY ]; 8 SHARE IN PHILLY [OFF FROM 11 SHARE]... Gee, wonder how much lower they would have been without the controversy? Is that sarcasm? Posted by: Tim at May 3, 2004 2:41 PM | Permalink House Un-American Activities Committee, COINTELPRO, Watergate, 1984, Iran-Gate, FOX, WMDs, Niger, CNN, Sweeps stunt fails, therefore it was not a sweeps stunt... that spin actually works for some networks too. Gerald Van der Leun writes: What occurs from that reflection? In general, very little in terms of altering the initial positions. If anything, I think that reflection tends only, in this atmosphere, to harden the positions already taken. Perhaps this puts a different light on things. Blogger Tacitus, a supporter of the war in Iraq, finds meaning in the faces and names broadcast on Nightline: As I write this, Nightline just flashed, together, the photographs of the two dead in Iraq whom I knew from younger days: Kim Hampton and Eric Paliwoda. I didn't realize they were killed sequentially. They fell in the line of duty, on the field of battle, and there is honor in their lives and deaths. What remains is for us to impart honor to the cause in which they served. I speak not of the defense of the United States: this is forever honorable, and right. I speak of the creation of a just Iraq. This would be an Iraq in which jihadis do not walk free, in which Ba'athist generals no longer rule, and in which civil war is not the near-inevitable future. That this Iraq does not exist, and will not exist because of our choices, means we have profoundly dishonored our dead there. They deserve better: something right, and lasting. It is hard to see those faces, those young faces, among the roll call of the dead. I look at them, and it strikes me that in walking away from Fallujah, we are walking away from their graves; leaving their light and memory to the cruel care of those who killed them. I recommend the entire post-- quite compelling. What Koppel said before the broacast: "As far as I'm concerned, it's a blank slate. People will take away some reflection of what they bring to it." A few comments up, Seth suggests: "perhaps Koppel knows exactly how the controversy around his program was and is fated to unfold, and what words he's expected to mouth in the rhetoric of political vs. partisan." Well, here's another thing he said in anticipation of the controversy, Seth: I think it is just as possible for a staunch supporter of the war to come away from this program very moved and content that it was done as it is for someone who is an opponent of the war to come with exactly the same feeling. Lisa de Moraes at the The Washington Post, who really got under Koppel's skin with her charge that "The Fallen" was a ratings grab, says Nightline ratings were UP (not down as Drudge claimed) Posted by: Robert Cox at May 4, 2004 9:36 AM | Permalink Koppel is appearing in a few minutes on Sean Hannity's radio show to talk about "The Fallen". I will liveblog his comments. Posted by: Robert Cox at May 4, 2004 3:06 PM | Permalink Above is link to the Google cache of the online blog of an interrogator at Abu Graib named Joe Ryan. I suppose it's a political statement as well. Posted by: Howard Beale at May 6, 2004 2:31 PM | Permalink The ultimate stupidity of this "controversy" is that images of sacrifice actually increase support for war. Rather than a political rorschach test, revealing pro-war or anti-war subjective biases, the nightline list and the photos of flag-draped coffins have one implicit function: to reinforce ritual of sacrifice that feeds the cycle of violence. Posted by: are you stupid? at May 8, 2004 12:00 AM | Permalink This may be a little late and bit short, but the Sinclair business is a glaring reminder that media access to the public audience can be easily abused. It appears that one person, or a few people, in the Sinclair Broadcasting Group decided what an audience of millions of Americans should not be permitted to see. I do not deny their 'right' to control what their stations broadcast. What I deny is their 'right' to own and control so much of the nation's television broadcasting infrastructure. Of course, the FCC is to blame. A new administration may or may not fix this problem. But it must be fixed. Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer at May 12, 2004 3:24 AM | Permalink |
|
Print
