Media needs to re-examine coverage of crisis

On February 15, 1898, an early-morning explosion rocked the deck of the USS Maine, which was stationed off of the coast of Cuba, sinking the ship and killing 254 members of its crew. To this day, the cause of the explosion remains a mystery.

But two months later, the United States declared war on Spain, who it blamed for the incident. Historians, however, blame the Spanish-American War on sensationalist "yellow journalism" that sparked a public demand for war in retaliation for the destruction of the Maine.

While I doubt that anyone would indict today's news media for starting the current war against Afghanistan, they too have engaged in inappropriate practices during the last month that any journalist should be ashamed of.

Take, for instance, the practice of parading a train of "experts" in front of the camera in order to sustain 24-hour broadcasts about the war and the continuing threat of terrorism on American soil. Many of the these self-proclaimed experts, whose words are taken as fact by millions of viewers, have no business commenting on recent events.

For example, I saw three different "experts" on bioterrorism discussing the anthrax scare on this morning's news. But how can anyone claim to be an expert on bioterrorism? Until a week ago, bioterrorism wasn't a reality - the thought that anyone would send highly refined strains of biological agents through the mail was unimaginable.

Honestly, I find it no surprise that the recipients of many of the letters containing anthrax have been media organizations. But I doubt that the letters are being sent with the intent of harming or disabling these organizations - whoever is the source of the anthrax is most likely just trying to instill fear in American citizens. And what could work better than enlisting the help of the media, which seems intent on helping to incite widespread panic with detailed updates about every new case of anthrax?

The media has also taken an inappropriate stance on the war against Afghanistan by promoting it as a source of national pride. Every time I turn on the T.V. and see the "America Strikes Back" slogan at the top of the screen, I expect to hear patriotic background music and see films of muddied soldiers raising the American flag over an enemy compound.

But the current operations in Afghanistan should not be viewed with pride - rather, as an unfortunate last resort in our campaign to prevent future attacks like those of Sept. 11. We, as one of the most powerful nations in the world, shouldn't enjoy the fact that we are unable to convince a smaller country that terrorism should be stopped and must use military force to prove our point.

Does our country forget that, just over forty years ago, its isolationist tendencies prevented it from helping to curb the aggression of Germany and Japan until it, too, was attacked?

I agree that an increased sense of pride in our nation's way of life, which many Americans feel was a direct target of the attacks on Sept. 11, is perfectly sensible. But the media's portrayal of the campaign against Afghanistan as a proud statement of our ideals is unacceptable.