PressEthic

In an article by Editor and Publisher yesterday, AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll gave an interview about the fact that an AP photographer, Bilal Hussein, is being detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and has been for six months. Apparently, Hussein has not been charged for any crime, but the Pentagon says vaguely that he is not being held for his work as a journalist, but rather because he poses as a threat. The Pentagon spokesman does not explain who Hussein might be a threat to and how or why.

I find this article notable for two reasons. One, Bilal represents a conflict between our government and military and the work of journalists. As the article says,

"[Carroll] also stressed that Hussein's detention should be viewed with the realization that the military works under the agenda of trying to control press coverage as much as it can. 'Part of conducting a war is propaganda,' she said. 'The United States government, back to the Civil War, has had an interest in controlling information on military maneuvers. That is part of their job. That is not part of our job.'"

Is Hussein's imprisonment a product of the government's attempt to supress negative war coverage? He has published photographs from the very heart of the war in Iraq, of insurgents as well as American and Iraqi troops. He is a native Iraqi - is this a case of the American military accusing Bilal of being a sort of embedded journalist for the insurgents (posing as working for the AP)? Hussein has worked for the AP for 2 years, which makes me inclined to believe that he is more credible as an innocent detainee. However, this controversy over Hussein's detainment may be pure hype in which Hussein becomes a symbol of the infringement on freedom of the press by President Bush, but actually, like the Pentagon claims, may be guilty of charges unrelated to his journalism work.

The second reason I find this article notable is Carroll's "call to arms" to news organizations to focus and increase their coverage of Hussein's detainment. She cited that many journalists and news organizations were not aware of Hussein's situation, and she has been working to change this.

The article reads,

Leaders of APME and two other groups, American Society of Newspaper Editors and Associated Press Photo Managers, responded to Friday's plea with a joint letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urging Hussein's release.

Carroll said she knows of few news outlets that have raised the issue since then, but praised today's Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle for an editorial that said 'to hold Hussein without charge and without due process not only chills the work of other reporters and photographers in Iraq but demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration's attitude on detainees and press freedom.'

Still, she said more needs to be done by news outlets. 'I think as an industry, we should be concerned when people are imprisoned because of their work as a journalist,' Carroll said. 'I never tell people what to cover. But I think it is worth paying attention. It would be hard for me to see why this was not a newsworthy event.'"

Somehow, Carroll's "call to arms" seems a little unethical. I think, actually, that Carroll IS telling reporters what to cover, and what their editorial pages should focus on. It is one thing to distribute information about the detainment of Hussein, although it has been an ongoing story and may have already been reported by newspapers, but it is another to encourage reporters to express their outrage.

Carroll went further:

"Carroll called on columnists and editorial writers at newspapers and other news outlets to focus on his plight and support efforts to release him. 'I wouldn't presume to tell them what to write, but I would presume to draw their attention to it,' Carroll told E&P Wednesday. 'Here is someone who has brought you pictures, images from a critical part of Iraq, who has now been in U.S. military custody for six and a half months, not charged with a crime, not charged with anything, but told he will be held indefinitely because his pictures are unwelcome.'"

E&P, expectedly, does not offer any commentary or opinion on Carroll's efforts. Columnists and editorial writers--that makes sense to me. But is Carroll also trying to say that the story should be a major (hard) news story as well?

I'm not really sure. Something about Carroll's efforts seem slightly unethical or biased towards journalists. However, she is earnestly trying to protect the freedom of journalists to do their job and report on the war, no matter how negative their coverage. I can't disagree with the principles of her argument, because as an aspiring journalist who is not a fan of the current administration, I am inclined to worry that Hussein's situation is representative of the limits upon freedom of the press that the military and Bush administration wish to impose (and are imposing). However, I am not sure it is entirely ethical to "create news" if other news organizations know about the situation and have not deemed it newsworthy or consider it a military matter that we don't have enough information about (what he is being charged with, etc.) to determine or even infer that Hussein is being detained (or not) for valid reasons.