Christopher Hanson teaches journalism at the University of Maryland at College Park. He worked for 20 years as a reporter for Time, The Washington Star, Reuters, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, writing on topics such as presidential politics, Congress, the environment, American diplomacy and military affairs. Hanson was a combat correspondent in the Gulf War and covered the civil war in Rwanda.

An interview with Christopher Hanson
(Interview April 8, 2003 with Nasim Moalem)

1.      What do you believe is the role of the press in a democracy?

It should be independent enough from government to provide an alternative source of information if the government is providing information and there is something to refute it.  The function of the press is to not allow government to monopolize information.  For example, in Vietnam, the official line of the war was exposed as a sham and a credibility gap developed.  We got a little of this two weeks ago (in this war).  This is one of the key jobs of the press, which is greatly impeded by who owns the press and public pressure.

2.      What do you believe is the role of the press in a democracy during wartime?

It is to do the same thing under much greater constraints—more of the dissidence than the US military was telling us.  Another role is to provide a broader context than what is being given by the military and that’s what I think the press has fallen behind in.  The embedding process doesn’t shatter the frame—the whole idea falls in how the war is being fought rather than the why.

It is interesting that Jessica Lynch is the most famous soldier.  The US likes to see themselves not as the bully on the block—that frame is very hard to shatter.  What the press should do is not automatically accept that frame.  They need to be aware of that frame and balance getting a frame on reality and survival.

The people (in the press) who make the decisions on what to show need to provide the context (not embeds).  By pulling people out of Baghdad, those news organizations are losing a lot.  Other issues you have to deal with are: how much emphasis do you put on other regions?  How much flak are you willing to take for it?

For embeds, the important issue is to not be propagandists; to maintain enough independence so you aren’t a tool of the military.  (The mistake made by the media) was that in order to have access to the embed system, they didn’t question—they became propagandists.  So the mistake—not for the embeds but for the media as a whole—was that they were pro-war before the war began.

The media are not going to assume the role of the opposition if there is no opposition.  This is in stark contrast to other countries because the press (in those countries) is aligned with political parties.  Questioning the war was put in the mouths of street protestors rather than (Senators) Daschle, Kerry, and others.  The point of leverage was before the war.

3.      How do you feel the coverage of the war with Iraq is going?

War coverage after the Gulf War was better after the war, sometimes just one week after it was over.  There was also some very good stuff before and during.  I filed extremely graphic stories of bodies because it (war coverage) was so antiseptic.  I think it’s a double-edged sword when you describe dead bodies of enemy soldiers.  It dehumanizes them.  You simply can’t do that with US soldiers.  The reporters stayed the last time (in the Gulf War) because they were frustrated by the lack of information.  What happened in Somalia after the intervention is that very few reporters stuck around (so lost context of the uprising in Mogadishu).

This war is the best and the worst.--the best because of the technology and the worst because of the jingoism.  It has a lot to do with 9-11 when the media was thrust into the role of national unity and there was surge of patriotism.  This is how we see ourselves—as heroes….attack us and we fight back.  The issue of why we are doing this was not actively pursued.  It the best coverage in the situation—we have reporters in the enemy capital and military and information in real time so its very difficult to be propagandists because you have to deal with facts.

(Are we still living in the shadow of Vietnam?)  The coverage of the attacks on the supply line and the over-pessimism that follow certainly played into that (an after-effect of Vietnam).  There is self-censorship as a result of Vietnam perhaps.  Obviously, if you’re given access, you’re going to be grateful and there’s always a tendency by the press to be awestruck by (military) technology—and buy into it.  The gullibility about the (infallibility of the) technology with “ghee whiz these guys are heroes and I get to be with them” mentality produces an easily manipulative media. 

4.      Do you have an example of when war coverage was ideal?

There’s never been ideal coverage of a war.  Open access to troops without embedding like (the kind in) Vietnam would be better.  Also, a more international perspective would be better—that is what’s missing now: the viewpoint from Iraqi troops.  Society then (during the Vietnam era) was extremely polarized compared to now, so you don’t have that shattered consensus now and so the press won’t have the same leverage as in the Vietnam era.