SO: Yeah, I would have. The Iraq war is one of the most important issues of our time, so I think it’s the obligation and the responsibility of the media to tackle every aspect of the war and to hear from all of the voices involved. I think truly we need more debates, not less, in the media in general, and certainly around the Iraq war.


PM: In covering the antiwar movement, and antiwar veterans of the Iraq war, how do you think the mainstream media has dealt with the issue of dissent, if at all?


SO: There have been individual instances of fantastic reporting of the antiwar movement, of Iraq war veterans who oppose the war, Iraq war veterans who support to war - there’s been some good reporting across the board. On the other hand I heard Paul Rieckhoff (an Iraq vet who now opposes the war) talk at the Media Reform Conference in Memphis last weekend, and he gave a searing indictment of the mainstream media. He said that he and other Iraq war veterans had been betrayed by the media in its lack of ability to cover the legitimate questions raised by the antiwar movement properly. That was his analysis.


PM: Anything else you’d like to add about the case, and your involvement in it?


SO: The case cuts right to the heart of a couple First amendment issues. It’s the journalist’s job to report the news and not to participate in government prosecution of political speech. It’s very important to preserve the press as a place to which all perspectives have access. I think that testifying, or the issuance of these subpoenas, erodes the necessary separation between the press and the government, and it threatens to turn journalists in to the investigative arm of the government.

  • 1
  • 2