Arousing passions to promote or protest war is not a difficult thing to do. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich, was able to convince millions of Germans that Poland actually attacked the Fatherland! All Goebbels had to do was fake a few pictures of dead German soldiers at the Polish border, and the Panzers were off to the races.
Imagine Iwo Jima in the age of the live shot. Or D-Day in a time of instant satellite communication. "Saving Private Ryan" was bad enough, but what if you were watching that bloody French campaign unfold in real time, you would very likely have been emotionally devastated.
Fast forward to the war on terror, which we actually did watch commence live when the second plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Journalists who covered the event saw people jumping to their deaths from windows and unbelievable death and destruction.
Those horrific images galvanized the nation and led to a quick war in Afghanistan. But now 9/11 has begun to fade in the memories of many, and we are bogged down in a bloody struggle in Iraq. Now there's a political struggle over how and where to wage the war on terror.
Enter the media, which is fully engaged in that struggle. The liberal press generally dislikes the Iraq campaign; the conservative media generally supports it, with the exception of isolationists like Pat Buchanan.
The ABC News program "Nightline" angered some Americans by broadcasting pictures of our military people killed in Iraq. I personally had no problem with it, and, as usual, Ted Koppel played it with a neutral face. Each individual was recognized for two seconds. Then they were gone. Just as they are from life.
The "Nightline" people put forth that the program was a tribute and, since I can't read minds, I will take them at their word. There is no anti-war record on "Nightline's" rap sheet. Koppel reported the war straight when he was embedded with invading U.S. troops last spring.
The same cannot be said for the Doonesbury political cartoonist Gary Trudeau, a committed leftist. Just two months after the horror of 9/11, Trudeau drew a Doonesbury strip accusing President Bush of using the attack to further his political agenda. As a commentator, Trudeau has a perfect right to do this. But there is a line that all commentators should not cross.
That line is using someone's personal tragedy to advance a political agenda, and Trudeau is now doing that in his exposition of a fictional U.S. soldier who loses his leg after fighting in Iraq. Trudeau does not support the Iraqi war, and it is clear that he is attempting to engage the issue on an emotional level. Imagine if you lost a limb in the fight and believed in the cause. Would you want your ordeal used to further Gary Trudeau's political views? I have received letters from wounded soldiers and their families who are outraged by Trudeau's methods and I agree with them.
Doonesbury makes political points all the time, albeit usually the same ones. But right now, the USA is involved in an intense war on terror where American soldiers are being killed and wounded daily. Even if you disagree with the war, it is imperative that responsible people respect the military and do nothing to harm our soldiers.
A case can be made that Gary Trudeau is attempting to sap the morale of Americans vis-à-vis Iraq. A case can also be made that Trudeau simply wants to heighten awareness of what our soldiers are going through. If Trudeau had a history of independent thinking, I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt. But unlike "Nightline," Trudeau is a true believer of the liberal cause and a rabid anti-Bush partisan. I believe in connecting dots and these are large enough to slap you in the face.
Dissent in a time of war can be noble but it also can be irresponsible. Each of us in the media has the mandate to make sure we are not in the latter category. I believe "Nightline" did not cross the irresponsibility line, but Trudeau did.
