`New Kind of War,' But Age-Old Dilemmas For Nation's Media

But even those Americans deepest in mourning can concede that some good has come of the disaster.

The fallout has brought Americans together in a way unprecedented in most of our lifetimes.

Almost 9 of ten Americans are standing proud behind a president who didn't even win a majority of the popular vote a year ago.

An equally impressive ratio is in favor of a war that doesn't have a defined enemy or a likely objective.

But while most Americans might appreciate our newfound solidarity, there are those who fear its repercussions.

Will dissenting voices be heard in these sensitive times, or will we protect ourselves from potentially troubling speech?

From our recent past, we know that once-discredited voices of dissent are often seen kindly through the lens of history.

Both the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and 1970s were decidedly unpopular campaigns in their infancies.

But with time came increased media coverage. As disturbing real-life images from the front lines were aired nightly on the news, the movements gained mainstream support.

Military leaders to this day criticize the "liberal media" for undermining America's war effort in Vietnam. But the images themselves were neither liberal nor conservative; they were only compelling and shocking, and they allowed the American people to make more informed decisions about American government actions.

Now, as America finds itself in this "new kind of war," as our president is fond of saying, the American mainstream media must grapple with age-old dilemmas.

Should the media hush the voices of dissent in the interest of maintaining high morale? Or should it heighten its responsibility to act as a forum for all voices, including those of dissent?

Too often in the last eight weeks, our media have chosen the former. Two newspaper columnists have already been fired for criticizing President Bush's actions in the hours following the attacks. And television host Bill Maher was forced to publicly apologize for making anti-patriotic remarks on his show "Politically Incorrect."

Certainly not all dissent has been tamped down.

Most newspapers are running anti-war letters to the editor, although they are often buried among the mass of pro-war letters.

The Virginian-Pilot, the Norfolk, Va.-based newspaper, ran a story in its Sunday Commentary section titled "Peace marchers aren't going away -- we're against this war."

Unfortunately, the story itself, penned by a student at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is poorly written and the author's case poorly argued. "We protest this war because we don't want innocent civilians in Afghanistan to die. We don't believe that the war will solve the problem of terrorism. It may actually create more terrorists who are repelled by the bombings."

Compare that column with another in the same section by Tribune columnist Cal Thomas. Unlike the anti-war piece, Thomas' column is given import by virtue of where it's placed (above the fold), how it's played (with an accompanying illustration) and who it's written by (a nationally syndicated columnist). Thomas' column, "U.S. shouldn't rule out the nuclear option," is arguably just as dissenting as the anti-war column, but its stance is much more palatable to a pro-war American audience.

"The Taliban fight with the weapons of terror, determined to kill every man, woman and child they can. The United States should spare no effort in wiping out the Taliban and all terrorists who would follow in their sandal-steps. If there is collateral civilian damage, that's war," Thomas writes.

The Virginian-Pilot's decision to run Thomas' column should be staunchly defended (I'm not aware of any outcry). His perspective is likely shared by thousands, perhaps millions, of other Americans and deserves to be elucidated by a gifted and passionate writer. The same, however, must be said of other perspectives, whether that of anti-war protesters, Pakistanis, Afghans, or Taliban members.

Embracing voices of dissent is never easy, least of all in the midst of war. With public opinion skewed so squarely in favor of American military action, finding voices of dissent among the press corps can be tricky in itself. Columnists renowned in the pre-Sept. 11 world for challenging readers have suddenly found themselves on the majority side of public opinion. But dissenting voices are out there, whether within our borders or beyond, and our media has a responsibility to find them.

Josh Myerov is a second year master's student in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. He can be reached at jmyerov@email.unc.edu.