By R. Cort Kirkwood
November 2, 2001

(AgapePress) - In one quick soundbite, David Westin, president of ABC News, again demonstrated why Americans don’t trust what they see on television or read in papers, and why many believe journalists have no values, no patriotism, and worse, no common sense.

Given that journalists most assuredly know this, you’d think they wouldn’t give voice to remarks that enrage just about everyone.

But alas, however much hope springs eternal in the average American’s breast, a journalist always proves his profession might be hopeless.

The Latest Outrage
Westin’s remark came on Oct. 23 in a speech to a journalism class at Columbia University, in answer to a fairly simple question: Was the Pentagon a legitimate target for terrorists on Sept. 11?

It was a no-brainer, for anyone but a lawyer or a newsman. Said Westin: “ I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that .... Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be, and when we get into the job of what ought to be, I think we're not doing a service to the American people.”

Huh? Westin quickly apologized, but his wheedling won’t help. Anyone who saw the remarks on C-SPAN, or even reads them, will believe Westin meant what he said.

They will always believe Westin and other journalists can’t tell right from wrong, or good from evil, and can’t make intelligent judgments.

The Isaacson Debate
Happily, a memo from the chairman of CNN to his foreign correspondents relieves some of the pain from Westin’s kick in our shins. Walter Isaacson told them to evaluate, carefully, the subtle messages they might send in reporting on civilian casualties of American bombing in Afghanistan.

“We must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective,” he wrote. “We must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people.”

Isaacson's point is well taken: Some reports, particularly interviews with Taliban officials, will merely televise the regime’s propaganda. Yet the memo triggered an immediate salvo from other news executives, who should know enough to shut up.

Said a honcho from CBS: “Our reporters are smart enough to know it always has to be put in context."

Are they? Just this week a reporter from NBC, another network, admittedly, asked the Taliban ambassador in Pakistan this kind of question: “How do you respond to the American’s government’s allegation that ....”

But let’s put Isaacson's point in historical context to grasp the import of what he said.

Imagine a reporter asking Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels this: “Now, Mr. Goebbels, the United States says Germany started this war, and is actually enacting policies that are anti-Semitic. How do you answer that?”

Sounds like a Westin question.

The Point
It‘s precisely this kind of “reporting” that has wrecked the news media’s reputation with Americans, and this kind of “reporting” spawns from Westin’s creed, the mantra of amorality, which is chanted with bovine inanity in journalism schools and newsrooms across the land.

Isaacson is right: Don’t repeat the enemy’s propaganda. A journalist needn’t sacrifice his impartiality and professional standards to make intelligent judgments; nor must she ignore the difference between good and evil to ask the tough questions and produce balanced work.

In short, you can’t report “objectively” on Sept. 11 anymore than you can report “objectively” on Auschwitz.

Westin and his cohorts better figure that out, lest they destroy what little credibility the news media has left.