|
Washington Week Online
With Gwen Ifill
Journalist, Moderator "Washington Week"
Thursday, March 27, 2003; Noon ET
Each week, the country's top reporters join moderator Gwen Ifill for an in-depth discussion of the week's top news, from Washington and around the world. The longest-running news and public affairs program on PBS, "Washington Week" features journalists -- not pundits -- lending insight and perspective to the week's important news stories. Now, Ifill brings Washington Week online.
Ifill was online Thursday, March 27 at Noon ET, to take questions and comments about the news and issues of the week.
Ifill is moderator and managing editor of "Washington Week" and senior correspondent for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Ifill spent several years as a "Washington Week" panelist before taking over the moderator's chair in October 1999. Before coming to PBS, she spent five years at NBC News as chief congressional and political correspondent. Her reports appeared on "NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw," "Today," "Meet the Press" and MSNBC. Ifill joined NBC News from The New York Times where she covered the White House and politics. She also covered national and local affairs for The Washington Post, Baltimore Evening Sun, and Boston Herald American.
"Washington Week," airs on WETA/Channel 26, Fridays at 8:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 12:30 p.m. (check local listings).
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Washington, D.C.:
I've never understood why your show is called "Washington Week" -- it's not about Washington, it's about the news in general! Can you explain?
Gwen Ifill: When Washington Week first went on the air 35 years ago, it was called "Washington Week in Review," and it was literally a roundtable of beat reporters who covered Washington. Over the years, we have expanded the franchise to include a broader array of subjects that touch on how government and public policy affectour lives. And because we try to look forward as well as back in our analysis, we dropped the words "in Review."
New York, N.Y.:
Hi Gwen, I was wondering why reporters have been "embedded" with American forces in the Iraq war BUT were not "embedded" in the war in Afghanistan?
Gwen Ifill: The embedding plan is the result of carefully negotiated plans worked out between news organizations and the Pentagon. The program came about in part because the news media have been unhappy with our ability to cover conflicts -- most recently in Afghanistan. But it also serves the purposes of the Pentagon, which has an interest in telling its story. Both sides agreed to the embedding plan with the idea that each could benefit. And despite some bumps along the road so far, it's mostly worked.
Virginia:
Is your show ideologically balanced? It seemed the women are antiwar and the men prowar.
Gwen Ifill: Our program is a place for reporters to share their reporting and analysis, not their opinions. So, even if the gender bias you describe were true, you wouldn't find women reporters rooting against the war, or men rooting for it on "Washington Week." We leave that to others.
Richmond, Va.:
How is the Internet playing into the distribution of information and the conduct of political discourse? Is this in any way making a difference in how public opinion is shaped in the U.S. or abroad or is there really no way to measure this?
Gwen Ifill: It's too soon to say that the Internet is shaping public opinion on this war, but it has clearly become a handy organizing tool for protest, for and against. Internet activists are a self-selected group, so I wouldn't make the leap connecting Internet sentiment with overall public opinion quite yet.
Cathedral City, Calif.:
Claims are made that our armed forces are disproportionately black and other minorities. TV coverage of the troops at war do no show this. Most of the soldiers seem to be white. Minorities in the services may be in a higher proportion than in the general population but this difference could be due to economics -- and the difference doesn't seem to be great. Are figures available to show just what the difference is between white and minority participation in the services and in the general public?
Gwen Ifill: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), among others, has made the point you are making. I'm sure there are figures available, but I have to plead some ignorance here. I do not have them at my fingertips.
Gullsgate, Minn.:
Gwen Ifill, I have great respect for your coverage and have often thought that here could be a credible candidate for the presidency? Funny too how this war has brought out a whole new group of antiwar dissenters. So far two waitresses from two local restaurants from this small city, have spoken up -- one hesitantly -- the other quite a spokesperson at many rallies here. Protest is not just for academics anymore. Old vets and grandmothers are on the frontlines of dissent. But where's the hard reporting?
My question: If the media locally fails to report the large turnouts against war here accurately how can the mainstream media be taken seriously? The idea of imbedded journalists; chemical factory reported and proved false;a secret camp for Iraqi prisoners now being created and unreported to the Red Cross etc. -- when false news reports become merely propoganda, doesn't "free press" become a sick joke?
Gwen Ifill: First of all, I report on politicians. I certainly have no desire to be one.
On your second point, I would suggest to everyone that we take a step back and look at overall coverage. A day does not pass where I do not see coverage of antiwar protest on television or in the several newspapers I see every day.
And it's good to keep in mind that every day's coverage is a snapshot. Assertions made one day -- especially in the field -- are apt to shift the next day. Some of this is the fog of war; some of this is the fog of political spin. But, given some time to put it in context (say, on a weekly basis on "Washington Week!") I find breaking news sorts itself out.
Raleigh, N.C.:
Why is there not a great deal of concern, and even anger, over Halliburton subsidiaries getting lucrative contracts to "rebuild" Iraq? Even if there is nothing questionable about the contracts, it just does not seem appropriate, given Cheney's position in the government and previous position at Halliburton.
Gwen Ifill: Unfortunately, we in the news media cannot give every story equal emphasis. Nor is our job to create outrage. We have written about the contracts involved in Iraq rebuilding (how else would you have heard about it?), but I suspect it is not the most urgent or compelling or immediate story to put on page 1 when a war is raging.
Rockville, Md.:
As a viewer, it appears that the Pentagon is controlling what is reported from the field. While this makes sense from a security standpoint, it does make one wonder if we are getting balanced reports. As an experienced journalist, what do you think?
Gwen Ifill: I think the Pentagon is indeed doing its very best to control the reports on this war. And as is always the case when anybody trys to control news coverage, it works only part of the time. True, embedding reporters with the troops has resulted in a lot of rah-rah stories. But I don't think the Pentagon has been able to control a lot of the second-guessing and firsthand video we have been able to see.
It's a trade-off reporters and news organizations agree to every day, whether we're covering school boards or the White House.
Arbyrd, Mo.:
Having spurned the U.N. so decisively about seeking their approval for the war against Iraq, how does the administration plan to convince them to shoulder a substantial portion of the costs of rebuilding the country? Or do they plan to "go it alone" on reconstruction costs as well, and pay for it through -- what means?
Gwen Ifill: The renewed pitch to the United Nations is just beginning. That is part of the reason why British PM Tony Blair is in the U.S. today. There has already been some resistance from countries who objected to the Iraq intervention in the first place, but it is hard to imagine the UN will be able to step back completely from the task of rebuilding Iraq.
Arlington, Va.:
How do you decide which four reporters will be on each week? Is there a normal rotation so that one reporter doesn't appear in more than a few weeks in a row?
Gwen Ifill: We choose reporters based on the subject we want to cover, but also based on their availability.
As you know, we have a regular stable of a couple dozen reporters who we rely on to keep us up to date on events on all of the major beats. Our producers touch base with them throughout the week, but we do not decide who will be on the program until Thursday afternoon. Even then, we reserve the right to change reporters if the news changes.
During the war, for instance, you can expect to hear regularly from reporters who cover the Pentagon, the White House, and -- when we can get to them -- folks in the field in Qatar, Kuwait and Baghdad.
Washington, D.C.:
Hope a non-Iraq question is OK.
What do you think will become of the tax cuts ultimately -- some compromise between the 726 billion and the 300 plus amount passed by the Senate? Or will Bush be able to change a few senators minds and get the whole enchilada?
Gwen Ifill: Compromise is the coin of the realm in Washington, isn't it? The next battleground over the tax cut is likely to be the House-Senate conference committee...where Senators' desire to halve the cut must be worked out with House member's desire to give the President everything he asked for. Believe me, we'll be watching.
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
I am angered and disgusted by the war coverage on network and cable news channels. As a Vietnam veteran, I am appalled by the way so-called journalists try to make war seem like a video game. Describing bombings as "spectacular" or the shooting of an Iraqi soldier as "shellacking."
As a journalist what are your thoughts on the war coverage?
Do you think the networks traded their integrity for the opportunity to be "embedded?"
Gwen Ifill: I do not believe the networks traded their integrity for the embedding. And although sometimes the reporting -- often live under pretty hairy circumstances -- can sometimes seem a little too unguarded and enthusiastic, I think it's worth it to know more, not less. And we are certainly seeing and reading more about this conflict than we ever have before.
To me, that's good news.
Natick, Mass.:
Gwen, the Pentagon seems to be making quite a few adjustments to its original plan. Can you suggest two or three milestone events we should look for in the next week that would show real progress in the war?
Gwen Ifill: I can't say what the milestones ought to be. But we will all certainly be at the edges of our seats waiting to see what happens when coalition forces get to Baghdad.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
I just finished reading Jim Lehrer's "No Certain Rest," just last night. If Jim decides to drive his bus down the road and write fiction as his day job, are you in line to take over his chair? Or will we see armed conflict break out between you and Ray Suarez likely requiring UN intervention? I've been watching the show for over 20 years and I almost never miss it. By the way, what's the latest with host emeritus, Mr. McNeill? See you tonight. Thanks much.
Gwen Ifill: No armed conflict at the NewsHour. Jim is a great, hands-on and extremely engaged boss who isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Writing fiction, I think, is the sanest thing he does every day.
Robin McNeill is still writing and producing.
Dover, Del.:
How do you keep so "level-headed"?
You must have strong opinions, but you are very fair in your questioning. Excellent hosting!
Will your write what YOU think one day?
Thanks for your efforts to keep us informed!
Gwen Ifill: Who knows that I think? I've spent so many years searching for the on-one-hand, on-the-other-hand middle, that it comes as second nature now to question everything -- ESPECIALLY strong opinion.
Washington, D.C.:
Do you find television journalism more or less professional satisfying than your days as a print reporter? Is it true, as often gets said, that television is less intellectually challenging?
Gwen Ifill: I am as intellectually challenged today as I ever was in 15 years working for four newspapers. I miss print reporting -- mostly because writing is such a unique and absorbing craft. But I do feel as if I have landed at the perfect place for serious television journalism -- at PBS.
Arlington, Va.:
You seem to make a lot of personal comments, wishing staff members happy birthday and such. Did you ever take heat for that?
Gwen Ifill: My staff loves it when I acknowledge them on the air. I don't do it a lot, but viewers should know I could never do all this on my own. I'm happy to dole out credit whenever it seems special and appropriate.
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.:
I think it's interesting that the journalists on your show offer their true, unfettered observations about world events. Isn't there a problem with news reporting in general if these observations need a separate forum (your show) to come to light? In other words, if journalists have these valuable observations to share... shouldn't they be a part of the articles/reports they file on a regular basis? Wouldn't this make "the news" more valuable?
Gwen Ifill: I think you'll find that our reporters usually share the best of what they write and broadcast -- not their opinions. Most viewers don't have the chance to read the LATimes AND the WashPost AND listen to NPR, CNBC and ABC every day...so we distill the best of what we see and hear on Friday nights. We try to tell you what you may have missed.
Leesburg, Va.:
Love your show!
I've been a big fan for years. What about making your show one hour?? A half hour is just not enough time to cover the issues! I really enjoyed your one hour special last Thursday. Do you have any plans for more (and longer) specials?
Keep up the good work!
Gwen Ifill: Thanks!
I'd love to do a one-hour program, but that decision goes beyond my pay grade. PBS and more than 300 local stations get to decide. But we love it when we leave you wanting more...
Warrenton, Va.:
Why do we not hear the media interviewing such figures as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and other internationally-acclaimed peace advocates? Wouldn't their voices add great value to the Iraq dialogue?
Gwen Ifill: You know, I suspect there are interview requests out there for the Pope, but I can't remember the last time he granted one.
San Francisco, Calif.:
Back to Virginia's question about Washington Week -- do you feel the make-up of the panelists is ideologically balanced? Or do most of the reporters lean left on social issues?
Gwen Ifill: I believe we report and analyze the news in a straightforward fashion.
(You'll never get me to say that our reporters lean left, because I just don't believe it.)
Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C.:
Do you think it's fair to criticize the mainstream American press as not being sufficiently critical of the Bush administration? It seems like every move Clinton made was called into question, but reporters are much less likely to offer criticism of Bush. I happen to think this is irresponsible. More than I object to the war, I object to the fact that Bush doesn't seem to think he's accountable to anyone...questions are unpatriotic, dissent is unpatriotic, etc. I think that to some extent he feels he can get away with this because the press hasn't held him particularly accountable. I'm interested in your take on this.
Gwen Ifill: My take on this, is that I find it interesting you feel that way.
I'm not ducking, just signaling you that it's not my job to be a press critic.
Adelaide, S.A. Australia.:
I don't have a question, but would like to make a comment.
I think the news hour on PBS is brilliant. Your sources, distinguised guests, and analysis of the major issues of the day, both domestically and internationally, is just fantastic. Please don't ever change this unique and informative news format.
Gwen Ifill: Thanks for the comment.
Just keep in mind that change is not always bad. We are always looking for ways to improve what we do without sacrificing what is best about our coverage.
Fan in Oregon:
Gwen,
We watch "News Hour" regularly and watch "Washington Week" every Friday night. I'm writing about what might be called "the mother of all undercovered stories." After reading an article in The Washington Post on VA hospitals, I used a search engine to look up whatever happened to Judicial Review of Veterans Claims and the special appeals court that the legislation authorized when it passed in 1988. I discovered that there was legislation proposed in 2002 to improve the court's performance. This sentence was on the DAV Web site:
>>Rep. Evans, with co-sponsorship from these House members, has introduced H.R. 4018, the Veterans Judicial Review Improvement Act of 2002<<
Maybe some time you could have someone on "Washington Week" talking about the whole issue of treatment of veterans (and how sometimes it is a red tape nightmare). It is an important topic due to the number already injured in Iraq, not to mention vets from previous wars.
Gwen Ifill: Good idea. We'll look into it.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
It has been written more eloquently by others such as Chris Hedges, yet there have been fears expressed that the media presentation of the war with Iraq may be deluded the public and making us insensitive to the death and destruction that is happening, yet not being shown. Is this something you fear as well?
Gwen Ifill: I do worry about becoming desensitized in the face of so much information, so much horror. But as long as we have human beings covering (and reading) the news, I think it is ultimately not going to happen.
Washington, D.C.:
Dear Ms. Ifill,
You are a wonderful journalist. I have long admired your work on the "News Hour."
I am wondering if you might comment on a rather overlooked story -- the test firing of missiles by India and Pakistan. Ordinarily, this exchange would be important news, but it has been relegated to the back pages. This is a very dangerous rivalry and a dangerous area of the planet. Should the administration be putting some effort in to turning down the heat in the area?
Gwen Ifill: Unfortunately, when we all become involved in covering one HUGE story, we do tend to overlook or play down others. India-Pakistan is one...but also Colombia, North Korea and a host of other hot spots.
But we do have a responsibility to cover the most important story of the day. The current challenges always trump the future ones.
We should -- and will -- cover the others when and as we can.
Portland, Maine:
This is a comment for Ms. Ifill -- your comment about a "raa-raa" war because of embedded journalists was very upsetting to me and I want you to know that. This is not a [expletive] basketball game. I understand that academics like yourself feel fully insulated from the realities of this situation and situations like this but you are more blessed than you know that you live in the United States of America. I would like you to reflect on that for just a moment. Think about all the men and women who are out there taking the heat so you can sit in your nice comfy office and lead a round table of other academics who are equally as insulated. You are certainly entitled to your opinions because there are people willing to make that happen for you and for all of us.
A Mother of an Armed Services Soldier
Gwen Ifill: It was certainly not my intent to offend you, and I apologize. I shouldn't have been speaking in webchat shorthand about such an important matter.
What I meant was, reporting about the early stages of the war can often result in a wealth of feature stories about the troops, their challenges, their stories. That is completely legitimate.
It is also our job, however, to write about and challenge the assumptions presented to us by war planners that might put the lives of these extremely brave people in danger -- necessarily or not.
Just as no one is opposed to peace, no one is opposed to the the very hard work now being performed on our behalf by young men and women under fire.
Just know that it is the job of reporters to tell every side of this story that we can get a handle on.
News Hour:
Who decides who is covering each story on the News Hour?
The military analysts this week have been much more interesting than the politicians that are usually on.
Gwen Ifill: Jim Lehrer makes assignments each day based on our discussions at an early morning planning meeting.
Chicago, Ill.:
A good test of whether the reporters on Washington Week lean left will come this week if you discuss the Texas sodomy case that comes before the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts were allowed to prohibit gays from serving as scoutmasters, the Washington Week reporters could barely suppress their disapproval, even though a vast majority of Americans polled agreed with this decision.
Gwen Ifill: We make our decisions about what to cover based on the events of the week. Needless to say, the events of this week have more to do with war than with the Supreme Court. Perhaps we can return to this and other court issues when opinions are issued in June.
Newton, Mass.:
During last week's show the comment was made
that unless our troops were in Baghdad by the time
of this week's show our Iraq invasion was in trouble.
Are we in serious trouble or is the delay just a bump
on the road to a relatively quick victory?
Gwen Ifill: That's exactly where we plan to begin our discussion tomorrow night at 8 pm (EST). A lot can happen between now and then on the war front, so be sure to watch.
Thanks everybody!
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
