The role of a journalist in a democratic society is to provide citizens with a factual and representative account of events, in a way that facilitates the enlightened understanding that is essential to informed self-governance. When it comes to such government dominated affairs as foreign policy, the role of the journalist becomes infinitely more complicated, as “trying to tell the truth about people whose job it is to hide the truth is almost as … difficult as trying to hide it in the first place” (Moyers). Born of this complexity is an ancillary role of critical analysis; journalists must solve the maze of self-serving, government manufactured realities to uncover truth and expose propaganda, thereby bringing understanding to an even higher level. Though difficult, some journalists, such as Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com, emerge triumphant. Ditz is a choice journalist whose work heightens citizen’s understanding by employing a holistic approach to reporting, explaining why the story matters, and by contradicting and questioning spurious government claims.
To begin, Ditz’s work is an asset to democracy because he employs a holistic approach that reduces fragmentation, and enhances comprehension of not just the story itself, but also its relationship to other stories and events. Ditz accomplishes this by using broader frames, which include aspects such as power distribution and political motivation, as well as by linking certain phrases in each story to other stories, which provide further context and clarification. The supporting stories come from a plethora of sources including mainstream, independent, religious, and Middle Eastern news organizations, as well as many related articles by Ditz himself. The use of a broad spectrum of sources intimately connects his stories and covered events with those of the rest of the world. For example, Ditz details the Obama Administration’s inconstant behavior regarding the sanctions they threaten to enforce against Iran unless the country agrees to “talks”, explaining that “Iran’s top negotiator, Said Jalili” did agree to “such talks and had a new proposal …”, but the U.S rejected the offer “as ‘meaningless’” and seeks to enforce the sanctions anyway (Ditz, Plenty of Threats). Ditz’s frame is broad enough to include motivation, explaining that the U.S. had just finalized a deal with Israel promising, “to back ‘crippling sanctions’ against Iran” if Israel held off on commencing new West Bank “construction projects” (Ditz, Obama Bows). He also links this story to others, which detail Jalili’s announcement, the deal with Israel, the sanctions, and the IAEA’s evaluation of Iran’s site. The practice of establishing connections, and utilizing broad frames heightens understanding by reducing confusing fragmentation, and providing additional sources of information and perspective.
Secondly, Ditz’s work is admirable because he takes the time to explain why the story matters. This is important because the meaning of a story can often elude the reader, lost amidst a labyrinth of facts, quotations, statistics, and political jargon. For the story to accomplish it’s purpose of telling the reader something about the world, the meaning may need to be brought manually to the surface; Ditz does not shy away from this task. An illustrative example is Ditz’s coverage of the momentous occasion on which “former [V.P] Dick Cheney finally admitted there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11” (Ditz, Cheney Admits). When the same story was also covered by mainstream sources, the majority limited themselves to Cheney’s confession, and quick refutation of many negative connotations one might conceivably find following from such a revelation. CNN, for example, simply follows Cheney as he points to a “former CIA director” as the true source of the misinformation, then proceeds to describe his unrelated, though perhaps telling, defense of the Guantanamo Bay “detention center” and Bush administration “interrogation techniques” (CNN, Cheney: No link). Ditz, on the other hand, does not choose to let his coverage of Cheney’s deception fit the standard plot formula of official demonization or political dishonesty- which would hardly shock readers into an epiphany. Instead, he finishes his story with the stirring fact that it was based (or at least justified) largely upon this erroneous piece of information that the U.S. “invaded Iraq … sparking a bloody war in which well over 100, 000 American soldiers remain mired to this day”(Ditz, Cheney admits no link). This simple statement of importance is seemingly obvious, yet it managed to escape the attention of a profusion of other news sources. Without the reminder of the consequence of Cheney’s deceit, a “bloody war” whose atrocities are largely hidden from us, this is simply another case of government dishonesty to be read and discarded as routine and unsurprising.
Lastly, Ditz deepens understanding by contradicting and questioning spurious government claims. Comedian Bill Maher quips that the U.S. “is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything…” (Maher). Although it is usually politicians who do the talking, it is important for journalists to be shrewd since they are the medium through which official statements reach the citizens. Ditz does not blindly accept official proclamations, or treat them as badges of credibility; instead he carefully weighs such statements against demonstrable evidence. For instance, Ditz points out Obama’s repeated use of the “demonstrably false claim that he had uncovered a ‘covert’ Iranian nuclear facility in Qom”, when in reality, “Iran had already declared the facility to the IAEA” (Ditz, Obama Endorses). He also contests Obama’s widely accepted accusation that Iran’s motives aren’t peaceful and that the country is “breaking rules” by providing information about IAEA guidelines, which Iran is well within, and noting that the IAEA has evaluated Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and found them to be conducive only to peaceful civilian purposes (Ditz, Obama Endorses). In John Pilger’s novel Freedom Next Time, he contrasts “what the wisest know” to what the majority knows as a result of the “stream of [government] disinformation…”( 19, 2). Ditz’s critical reporting resists fabrications, and breeds the type of wisdom Pilger so esteems.
Furthermore, Ditz asks questions that challenge the assumptions and accusations in official statements. Still upon the subject of Iran’s recently unveiled nuclear power site, Ditz asks whether it is really “a provocation as Western leaders have tried to spin it, or merely a hedge against attack?”(Ditz, Obama: Iran is On Notice). He goes on to suggest less incriminating explanations for the site’s suspicious circumstances, such as it’s discrete location which he says “would add to the difficulty of Israel, which has repeatedly threatened to … destroy its entire nuclear program with an air strike” (Ditz, Obama: Iran is On Notice). By identifying, rather than reporting, inconsistencies, Ditz demonstrates his conviction that the role of journalists “in any society is to be truthful and to ask difficult questions…” (Ditz).
In closing, Ditz’s efforts to present a comprehensive, meaningful, and critical account of political issues have resulted in an admirable body of work that surely contributes to the enlightened understanding of readers, thereby embodying the spirit of democracy. Although Ditz’s critical analysis of politics could easily be seen as pessimistic or off-putting, it is this same quality that moves me to regard him so highly. I deeply respect his decision to side with err on the side of criticalness, favoring reality over power. To borrow from Bill Maher, “I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws?”
Works Cited
CNN. “Cheney: No Link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, 1 June 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/
- - -. “Report: Iran has ‘updated nuclear package’; ready to hold talks.” CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, 1 June 2009. Web. 2 Sept. 2009. <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/
Ditz, Jason. “As Required, Iran Informs IAEA About New Enrichment Site.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 25 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. “Calls for More Harsh Action After Iran Reveals New Construction.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 25 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. “Cheney Admits No Link Between Saddam, 9/11.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 25 Sept. 2009. Web. 1 June 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. E-mail interview. 16 Nov. 2009.
- - -. “Obama Bows to Israel Over Settlements, Iran.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 25 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. “Obama Endorses Iran Proposal on Uranium Enrichment.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 1 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. “Obama: Iran Is on Notice, Won’t Rule Out Military Action.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 25 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
- - -. “Plenty of Threats as Iran ‘Deadline’ Looms.” Antiwar.com. Ed. Eric Garris, et al. Randolph Bourne Inst., 2 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://news.antiwar.com/
Maher, Bill. “New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country.” The Huffington Post. Ed. Roy Sekoff. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 7 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://www.huffingtonpost.
Moyers, Bill. “Journalism & Democracy.” Editorial. Nation 7 May 2001: n. pag. Web. 21 Nov. 2009. <http://www.thenation.com/
Pilger, John. Introduction. Freedom Next Time. By Pilger. New York: Nation, 2007. 1-19. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment