Cooke traces 230-year trend in ‘Reporting the War’

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

By Sam Petri

Valley resident John Byrne Cooke’s new book, “Reporting the War: Freedom of the Press from the American Revolution to the War on Terrorism” (Palgrave Macmillan, $24.95), is not just for history buffs or journalism geeks, but for everyone who turns on the news and questions what they are watching.

Cooke examines the press and its ability to gather and relate accurate information to the public during times of war and in the face of government censorship. Thoroughly researched and insightful, it takes aim at every American war (except the War of 1812) and provides historical context to guide readers through each one.
Cooke fielded a few questions for the Planet about the project.

•
 
Planet Jackson Hole: You write, “In the shock of war we feel that our way of life is threatened; in response we are willing to abandon (temporarily, we think) the principles on which that way of life is founded, in the hope of regaining our security.” Could you comment on that statement in the way it relates to the PATRIOT Act?
John Byrne Cook: The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example. If you look into what was going on in the halls of Congress, there had been a pretty good compromise, as I say in the chapter on 9/11 and Afghanistan. The deeply divided judiciary committee had unanimously approved a compromised bill worked out between Senate and House negotiators on their different versions.  But over night the bill was rewritten, and what was voted on and passed the following day – which many people in the press pointed out, notoriously – was not read by most members of Congress who voted on it. It was a redrafted bill that nobody took the time, or insisted on taking the time, to read. So there Congress failed in its role and it reflected the mood in the country, [which] was

“We’ve got to do something.” That’s the thing, in the beginning of a war, especially an absolutely unique event like 9/11 where we have no precedent for how to respond to something like that – an attack on civilians within the United States by people we can’t identify – the fear was very strong and the Patriot act was one of the results.

PJH: Now people appear to be dissatisfied with the PATRIOT Act. Why were people willing to give up rights then and now anxious to take them back?

JBC: Because that’s the normal course of things. In the beginning of a war you say, “We’ve got to do something,” and then, when you settle into whatever the routine of that war is, people have time to reflect and think, “Maybe this isn’t such a good idea.” At least at the time when the PATRIOT Act was passed, it did have sunset provisions for certain aspects of the bill. And when those sunset provisions were about to expire Congress did reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. But, if I’m remembering correctly, that was before the 2006 elections and before the Democratically controlled Congress came into office. From 9/11 until January 2007, when there was a change in power in Congress, the Republican Congress did a generally bad job of oversight on any of the wartime actions of the Bush administration. So Congress definitely bares some of the blame in this and some other situations.

PJH: How does the press stay faithful to the truth in the face of government censorship?

JBC: I didn’t have to look very far to find voices in the press that have been, and are, articulate about the problems with the first Gulf War. It’s really striking how prescient people in the press were, about what could result from putting this American lead military force in the Middle East at that time. Of course what they didn’t know exactly was when it was going to result. And they didn’t foresee September 11. But if there is a continuum in terms of the press’s view of the United States land force in the Middle East, there has never been a moment when people were not aware and were not protesting the kind of measures that this administration has taken, often in secret often with out congressional approval – seeking to avoid either congressional or judicial oversight – in the war on terrorism.

PJH: Do you think the American people generally favor the voice of the government or the free press?

JBC: I think in the beginning of the war, when they’re scared, they often back the government and they often suppress dissent.  In 12 chapters on 12 American wars, I can only point to one war – Vietnam – where the press succeeded in changing public opinion, and that succeeded in changing government policy. Much more recently you can point to the 2006 elections, which were really interesting. On television, radio and newspapers, all the commentators were saying off-year elections, mid-term elections, are almost always decided on national issues. Looking at exit polls it was absolutely clear these people voted on the issue of the Iraq War and there was an implied criticism of the Bush administration in other areas as well. But has it resulted in a change of policy? Not really.

My point at the end of the day is, nobody – not the Founding Fathers or anybody since – has set up the press as being in charge of correcting the errors made by the government. This is a democracy. The press was protected by the Founding Fathers so that they could inform the people. And specifically so that they were free to criticize the government. Because the presumption was that the government would always have ways of making its opinion known. But what will not always have a way, unless we have a free press, are the small voices in opposition, and ultimately it’s up to us.

Photo by: Courtesy of John Byrne Cooke

PERMALINK:
Cooke traces 230-year trend in ‘Reporting the War’ | Planet JH News Article: General Music Arts and Culture

Leave a Comment