Of lapel pins and buttoned lips

By ERIC DEGGANS

St. Petersburg Times, published October 4, 2001

Noam Chomsky, a brilliantly iconoclastic, leftist social
critic and linguist, calls them the limits of "thinkable
thought."



They're the invisible boundaries he says encircle every
mainstream U.S. journalist or commentator, ensuring they
don't say anything too subversive.



WFLA-Ch. 8 news director Forrest Carr ran into those
boundaries Sept. 20, after I reported his decision to take a
stand in his newsroom and say something controversial:
Objective TV journalists shouldn't wear red, white and blue
ribbons on their lapels on air.

Bill Maher, the acerbic comic who hosts ABC-TV's Politically
Incorrect talk show, hit that wall Sept. 17. He offered the
politically incorrect observation that the U.S. government
was "cowardly" in sending missiles from distant locations,
while the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon were not.



In Carr's case, you'd think he'd suggested burning a flag,
judging by the telephone calls, faxes and e-mails that hit
my office. WFLA and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies,
the journalism think tank that owns the St. Petersburg Times
and advised Carr on the decision, also got pointed public
feedback.



Whipped up by radio personalities who seem to thrive on
conflict and confrontation, people genuinely fearful
following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks seemed to lose all
perspective on Carr's action.



"You probably think burning the American flag is freedom of
speech," read one fax sent to me at the Times. "Get a life."
(An aside: Contrary to some rumors, St. Petersburg Times
employees can wear any ribbons or lapel pins they choose
while working.)



As for Maher, his comments -- fueled by a rage that made
that show an important, engrossing half-hour of television
-- could cost him his job. After his remarks aired,
big-name advertisers such as Sears and FedEx boycotted his
show and 17 TV stations dropped him nationwide -- including
Washington's ABC affiliate and Sinclair Broadcast Group,
which controls ABC affiliates reaching more than 4 percent
of the country.



I guess when these folks first got involved with his show,
they didn't see the title.



No less a critic than Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer took aim
at Maher, saying, "There are reminders to all Americans that
they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and
this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."



It was a sobering sight: a U.S. government official
suggesting there are times when a member of the media
shouldn't criticize the government and implying that
attempts to punish Maher for his words are justified.



And these aren't the only media types bumping up against the
bounds of thinkable thought: Lawmakers in Missouri say they
will more carefully scrutinize state funding for Missouri
University's school of journalism after the college-owned TV
station warned anchors not to wear outward signs of
patriotism.



A newspaper columnist in Oregon said he was fired after
criticizing President Bush for not immediately returning to
Washington after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Voice of America
international radio network nearly declined to broadcast an
interview with Taliban militia leader Mullah Mohammed Omar
after State Department officials called its board of
directors to complain.



As the local controversy spread Sept. 20, area TV anchors
seemed to sprout flag lapel pins and ribbons overnight,
especially on WFLA. (Two local anchors I called that day
said they decided on their own to wear lapel pins or
ribbons, but the synchronicity still seemed fishy.)



What's going on here? How can this happen in a nation that's
supposed to value freedom of speech above all other rights?



Part of the problem is the media's tendency to serve as
community cheerleader.



TV anchors wearing jerseys, shirts or hats from area sports
teams and impossibly upbeat media stories about mall
openings are just two examples.



Media people know their success depends on the support of
the community, so they are sometimes shameless about
courting public good will by advocating popular causes
(witness how outlets ranging from MTV to NBC recently have
changed their on-screen logos to incorporate the American
flag).



But we are entering a time when Americans don't need to be
told what they want to hear. They'll need to be told things
they have to hear, however painful.



That's our greatest challenge, as we head inexorably toward
a military action that is likely to echo the Vietnam
conflict more than World War II. In the '60s, public
officials painted false pictures of the Vietnam War, and it
took a gutsy cadre of journalists to expose harsh truths:
the civilian casualties, the mounting U.S. dead and the lack
of progress.



Already, our political leaders are saying this attack came
from extremists who hate America because of our country's
freedoms.



But incisive reports aired on 60 Minutes and the Discovery
Channel, among others, have outlined other motivations,
including our support for repressive Middle Eastern regimes
(including, at one time, the Taliban), our alliance with
Israel and missile strikes that some say have killed many
Arab civilians.



Some journalism experts worry that, once a military action
begins, government officials will attempt to control
information to a greater extent than even during the Persian
Gulf War.



In this environment, will today's journalists have the
stomach to tell America the truth? Especially when
patriotism, good business sense, war morale and everything
else demands otherwise?



How much tougher will that task be when TV anchors have been
wearing red, white and blue ribbons on their lapels for
months and voices somehow labeled unpatriotic have been
silenced?



So let me suggest that now -- after an acceptable period of
mourning for the thousands who died in New York City,
Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. -- that it's time for
journalists to take off the ribbons or lapel pins and let
their reportage do the talking.



And it's time for Americans to listen, no matter how much we
disagree with the message.



We found out Sept. 11 how powerful symbols are and how far
some people will go to bring down those signs that stand for
America and its influence over the world.



If our society tightens its "limits of thinkable thought" in
a knee-jerk nod to thoughtless patriotism, those terrorists
will have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.



- Material from Times wires and Times files was used in this
report.

To reach Eric Deggans, call (727) 893-8521, e-mail
mailto:deggans@sptimes.com