Has the world changed since September 11?
Have the news media changed?

I have a great concern, from a legal point of view, that what Congress and the executive branch are doing threatens to alter the fabric of civil liberties in this country. That’s not high on readers’ radar. I’m also concerned about issues of media coverage of military operations and of dissent, and about the watchdog role of the press at a time when some people think that questioning what the government is doing is unpatriotic. Jane Kirtley, director, Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law

The events of September 11 have turned the news business back into the news business. After 10 or more years of increasing trivialization, a retreat from international coverage, increasing reliance on market logic to try to figure out what to cover . . . all of a sudden, the world matters, and the news is serious. If you’ve been in a newsroom there’s a whole different atmosphere. Eric Black, staff writer Star Tribune

Cancellation of a single Monday night football game cost us heavily [in advertising revenue]. In the long run we hope people will recognize that we are willing to invest in an important story. Scott Libin, former KSTP-TV news director

Since September 20 [after the initial hard-news coverage of the terrorist attacks] things have gotten a lot trickier. [Attorney General John Ashcroft] tips the Freedom of Information law on its head. [It’s] downright scary. Media must reinforce constantly that we do not know what will grow from the sunshine except for the truth. People from the government forget [the distinction] between government and country. Tim McGuire, Star Tribune executive editor

Once the panelists at the October 22 public forum had made their first observations on media coverage of terrorism and the United States’ response, members of the audience focused on several concerns:

Lack of international news coverage

Tim McGuire, the Star Tribune executive editor, disputed the contention that the media had ignored the Muslim world or the Taliban. He said the Star Tribune had run several stories in recent years, but that readers did not remember them because those stories were not relevant to the lives of most Americans . . . then. But now, he said, those stories mean life or death to Americans; he said those stories are not really international news, but local news — local because they hit home here.

"Increasingly," McGuire said, "I think this is going to have a positive effect of having Americans wake up to the fact that they are in a global world."

Eric Black, who writes about media values and performance for the Star Tribune, and who has criticized his own paper for publishing what he calls too much trivial information, applauded the management’s decision to invest heavily in this story:

"Since September 11 a lot of pages have shown up in the hard news section of our paper and a whole lot of other papers. The advertising revenue isn’t there to support them. We were heading into a recession already [before Sept. 11], starting to talk of ways we could save money. I hope we can preserve some [of that commitment to more serious news] after the excitement of the story blows over and take advantage of this opportunity to get back to our main role . . .informing [readers] about the world, the nation and their community."

McGuire said he hates the expression "Since Sept. 11 the world has changed."
"The fact is, Americans’ world has changed," he said. "You can go around the globe and see where awful things have happened — Somalia, Bosnia — we kind of turned our heads from them. Everything is about relevance."

Jingoistic presentation of news

Criticism centered on television news, especially cable news channels’ and networks’ use of red, white and blue banners on the screen since the attacks, with signature slogans such as "America Strikes Back." Scott Libin, KSTP-TV news director, said his newsroom had chosen the phrase "America Responds." He said he saw that as being in tune with reporting rather than cheerleading.

Calling public relations by its name

One audience member questioned media acceptance of Pentagon claims of targets hit, especially when the military denies access to independent media observers. "There’s no objective source for verifying the information," he said. "You need to provide that context — that the media have no independent verification."

"That’s good feedback," said Scott Libin. "Perhaps we should state it more frequently."

Alleged Somali support of terrorism

A member of the audience said the Star Tribune had alleged that thousands of Somalis were connected to an organization that cooperated with bin Laden. That’s what was "downright scary," he said, using a phrase McGuire had used earlier to describe government attempts to control the news media.

"Have you ever thought about the backlash?" he asked McGuire. "[Somali] elders in the hospital [after assaults] . . . what you have reported is irresponsible, unethical, worse than tabloid journalism. Where is the proof?"

McGuire responded, "I have every confidence in that story. We clearly said that in most cases these contributions are unwitting. In fact [terrorist fundraisers] have been here, and that group is on the President’s list of banned organizations. People close to the investigation are convinced money is going to bin Laden’s organization.

"We think, and we have thought, a lot about backlash. No backlash [from this story] has been proven. There was backlash long before the Star Tribune article. Some Somalis have called and said, ‘You’re right on, don’t worry about it.’

"What would you have us do? I find it hard to believe that the Somali community would want us to bury that information. [They could read that story and say] ‘I thought I was contributing to a charity, and maybe I wasn’t.’"

The questioner persisted: "Where is the proof? Where is the beef?"

McGuire: "We printed that proof. Law enforcement authorities are convinced that this is taking place. I am satisfied that it is. I stand ready to meet with you at any time you want."