By Mike Jankowski

	Jo-Ann Armao, Pamela Benson, Jim Militello, Tom Toles and Doug Turner listen as Wolf Blitzer shares an anecdote with the audience.

Coverage of the then-pending war in Iraq, the impact and reliability of Internet news sources and censorship vs. security were among topics discussed by a panel of award-winning UB graduates February 5 at the National Press Club. The Washington, DC chapter of the UB Alumni Association hosted the event, which attracted a capacity audience of 150.

Participating in the panel, moderated by W. David Penniman, dean of the UB School of Informatics, were Wolf I. Blitzer, B.A. ’70, CNN anchor and Emmy and Golden CableACE Award winner; Tom Toles, B.A. ’73, Washington Post editorial cartoonist and Pulitzer Prize winner; Pamela S. Benson, B.A. ’76, CNN senior producer for national security; Jo-Ann E. Armao, B.A. ’74, Washington Post assistant managing editor for metro news; James M. Militello, B.A. ’79, Associated Press Radio sports broadcaster and Douglas L. Turner, Buffalo News Washington bureau chief, who attended UB in 1949-50.

“The events of 9-11 put us, as a country, into a post-traumatic syndrome,” said Militello, when asked to define the most critical issue facing the nation. “We were stunned for a lengthy period of time and it took us a while to come out of it. In the meantime, we were more than willing to be led in a direction we were told was going to make it safer.” In doing so, Militello argued, Americans have allowed “an assault on our personal liberties without a legitimate justification. We’ve been too willing not to raise our voices as a group for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or un-American.”

Though the nation is built upon a foundation of personal freedom, such freedom is delimited by security concerns in a post 9-11 world, said Benson. “We used to be protected by two oceans,” she continued. “That doesn’t exist anymore. There probably is a need for some [security] steps.” Reporters, she said, need to let people know what those changes in security procedures and restrictions on news-gathering are. “Maybe we do think that because the world has changed and our society has changed that [journalistic practices] have to change. But people need to be informed and be aware of what’s happening and they have to make their own decisions.”

Armao expressed concern that “we don’t know what the biggest issue is.” On September 10, 2001, many journalists were focused on such stories as the disappearance of Chandra Levy and her involvement with Congressman Gary Condit. Journalists, she claimed, simply must get better at unearthing what the real issues are, issues that may not be obvious at first glance. Discovery of these types of stories, along with unfettered access to information, are key to better journalism, she said.

“I look back to 9-11 and wish that the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN had done a story using secret data that indicated the World Trade Center was vulnerable to attacks and that airport security was full of Swiss cheese.” Armao continued, “I suspect we might have had airline officials saying ‘you can’t publish that; it’s going to give somebody ideas.’ I would argue that if an article appeared and that the information had been out there, maybe 9-11 wouldn’t have happened. I don’t think information is a bad thing. The more we allow our freedoms to be restricted and the information we rely on to be impugned, the more we’re going to be harmed,” she claimed.

For his part, Turner cited a need for more—and better—coverage of the important issues of the day. For instance, only a handful of reporters are covering Justice Department civil liberties issues; they need to be doing so “with a very tough attitude, asking the questions that you want answered,” he observed. “These people [government officials] work for us and this has been forgotten. We hire them, we pay them, but we treat them as if they were officials of a closely held family operation.”

Blitzer offered his perspective on world events, particularly from the vantage point of the Middle East, where he has traveled extensively and spent a great deal of his career. “I think it’s fair to say that there are people out there who hate us, who despise us and who think that we want to destroy them,” he said. “It’s not just Al Qaeda but [also] other terrorist organizations that have links with various governments, and they would love not only to do another 9-11, but they’d like to do something much worse. Unfortunately, they have that capability. They have access to biological weapons—anyone who has seen and heard how these people feel about us and how they think they’re going to enter paradise if they kill themselves and destroy us in the process … It’s a chilling situation.”

Blitzer said he, too, was concerned about restricting civil liberties in the quest for security, but countered that “we face an enemy out there that has no respect for any of the basic ground rules.”

Turning to the proliferation of cable television networks, the impact of the Internet and corporate ownership of multiple news sources, panelists concurred that these phenomena should be viewed cautiously, but are favorable developments overall for the journalism profession.

“The weakness in Internet news,” said Toles, “is that the reader has to be pretty wary of the verifiability of what they’re reading; only time and reputation can give you the assurances you want. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s a medium established that can’t benefit from a set of challenges and a set of questions and criticisms.”

Blitzer spoke to concerns about media conglomerates and their effects on news-gathering and the competitive factors involved. “In the end,” he said, “it’s going to make us better journalists. Even though there’s a smaller and smaller number of corporate giants buying these mainstream journalistic organizations, it’s still competition. There’s plenty of quality journalism on television and I think we have a lot of that at CNN.”

The panelists agreed that if the United States were to go to war, the conflict would be covered like no other, especially by electronic media. Benson wondered if state-of-the-art technology like videophones would make a difference, if allowed or advisable. “If we’re with the military on a mission of some sort, would broadcasting live jeopardize a troop action? They may not let us broadcast anyway, but those are questions we have to deal with and decide.”

Turner was less interested in the technology available for wartime coverage. “My concerns in this area are aside from the mechanics,” he said. “It’s my belief that most people are wondering how we got into this in the first place. What has happened during the last year? I don’t think anybody has answered this question. We’ve built up this huge arsenal and now we’re brandishing it, but how have we gotten here?

“Now we’re going to go to war and we’re worried about the mechanics? The mechanics really involve only a handful of people in our business; the results involve millions. I think we need a new attitude.”


Mike Jankowski is assistant director of alumni relations.