The media's civil voice.

The war in the Gulf focused more sustained attention on the role of the press in international conflict than at any time since the Vietnam War. The subject crept into public debate briefly at the time of the U.S. invasions of Grenada and Panama, but not nearly to the degree that characterized the 1991 confrontation with Iraq. Yet for all the dismay expressed in debates, conferences, studies, panel discussions, articles, and academic papers about the U.S. news media's performance during hostilities, this emphasis on how the press behaves during wartime may be misplaced. The historical record is clear: The period of concern about press performance should come before a war starts because once a war does begin, good journalism is too late. Mainstream journalism in any society at any time tends to defer to the state's perspective during a shooting war, particularly during the early stages. The U.S. press in the Gulf (or Vietnam, Grenada, or Panama, for that matter) was no exception, underscoring the truth of Christopher Lasch's observation that war always represents a “monstrous intrusion of the public in the private.” In other words, the institutions of civil society are simply no match for the forces of nationalism and jingoism unleashed by modern warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]