Churchill and Discussion

Informing the Citizenry: Churchill and the Newscaster
By Rosemarie Jackowski
Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Thank you, Ward Churchill...for doing the impossible and opening up a national discussion about U.S. foreign policy.

Ward Churchill's controversial essay has served a very important purpose for which the world should be eternally grateful. It has opened a national discussion about responsibility, guilt, and foreign policy. This discussion is long overdue. It is not about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is about how many citizens must accept responsibility for the actions taken by their government in their names. Churchill's essay is an essay about you and me.

Though guilt is often used as a religious term, the connection to religion is not a necessary one. An atheist might have an even greater appreciation for ethical or moral behavior than a religious person because the atheist would not hold the belief, common to most religions, that the afterlife would be the time for ultimate justice. Maybe an atheist would be more apt to work for justice in this life.

Guilt is an essential part of the human psyche. It is the voice of the conscience. It is the force that can turn a battlefield soldier into a conscientious objector. Ward Churchill, in his essay, was trying to awaken the conscience in each of us. Maybe he was trying to teach us that humanity will continue to suffer until we all become conscientious objectors. He was echoing the message of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and many other peace and justice advocates of the past.

Churchill makes reference to workers in some career fields, which can be associated with the harm done by the government. He refers to them as "technocrats of the empire". Can that be interpreted to include, among others, those working in the financial field? Without financial support, the war machine could not function. Not too long ago, a family in Massachusetts, as a matter of conscience, refused to pay their taxes. The family was prepared to pay a high price for their heroic act of conscience. The government confiscated the family's home.

Assigning levels of guilt or responsibility would be an interesting topic for debate. Does the financier bear a greater burden of guilt than the technician? What about the person who pays his taxes knowing that some portion will go to support the war? What about the educator who fails to give his students an accurate worldview? What about the scientist in the weapons laboratory? What about the professor who taught the scientist in the laboratory? What about the auto mechanic who repaired the car of the professor, and thus enabled the professor to get to work?

Does the pilot who flies the plane have the same level of guilt as the bombardier who releases the cluster bombs? What about the factory worker who made the sprocket that went into the plane? What about the technician in the micro-technology lab? How about the bystander at a parade, who cheers on the war machine? What about the commander-in-chief? What about the low ranking soldier on the battlefield? Does the military chaplain who gives aid and comfort to a soldier, during an illegal war, carry a burden of guilt? There are varying degrees of responsibility. Maybe history will exonerate none of us.

Religious and legal experts generally agree that knowledge and understanding are necessary in order to hold a person responsible. Would a commander-in-chief be morally responsible for his deadly policies if he lacked the information necessary to make an informed decision? The lack of information might give a president an escape clause in the social/moral contract. Because of that, there is one group that has an even higher level of moral responsibility...one group that must accept the guilt for the millions slaughtered in deserts, jungles, and bombed out cities. The Ultimate Guilt falls upon those who control the dissemination of information...those who control the press and the electronic media.

Maybe at a time of extreme crisis, when civilians are being bombed there should be a moratorium on all coverage of hyped up sex trials of celebrities, sporting events, and other irrelevant shows of questionable news value. Can it be justified to have a Super Bowl during a super humanitarian crisis? Pleasure, joy, fun, and celebration are important aspects of the human experience, but our national priorities should be examined. If we have 20 TV sports channels and not one foreign policy channel, one might come to the conclusion that our national focus is a bit twisted.

Judging by the number of people who still believe the big WMD lie, the news/talk shows that are aired have failed to inform. Part of the problem is that the members of the media do not know what they don't know. Would the fact that they also are uninformed relieve them of any responsibility? Maybe, but maybe not. Certainly the members of the press have a responsibility to at least make a minimal effort to gain information. They have not been doing that. They have failed in their sacred trust.

We need a pledge in the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath for those who broadcast the news. Would they be willing to, at least, do no harm? If they are not inspired enough to educate and inform themselves, they should turn their microphones and presses over to someone who cares enough to access the relevant information, especially on topics of life and death, war and peace.

The list of topics that have been ignored by the press, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians, is a long one. One of the many neglected news stories that needs to be explored is the government policy as expressed by Madeleine Albright on May 12, 1996. In an answer to Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were "worth it". Albright was not just a person in the checkout line in the supermarket. Albright was speaking as an official of the government. The "it was worth it" statement has been hanging out there in the airways for almost nine years. The world has been waiting for years for a member of the press to investigate that policy of the government of the United States. Please, ask the question at the next press conference. The question is, "Does United States official policy still support the idea that the deaths of large numbers of children can be justified, in order to promote U.S. foreign policy?"

There are those who accuse Churchill of being an extremist. Instead, it seems that his views are really quite moderate. There are others who are calling for a complete shutdown of the economy, the closing of all businesses, and a boycott of all, except essential services, as long as the wars and occupations continue.

I thank Ward Churchill for opening the discussion with his essay. At a time in history when one nation has a stash of weapons of mass destruction sufficient to kill every living thing on the planet, no one has a greater responsibility than the newscaster. It is only an informed citizenry which holds any hope for the survival of humanity. Maybe someday, if the press fulfills its moral mandate, there will be no more 9/11s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. She can be reached at dissent [at] sover.net