Press Corps Research Articles

Dogma, Praxis, and Religious Perspectives on Multiculturalism

The first of these quotes is from a scholarly treatise on the prob- lem of alterity and violence in allegedly ethnic politics in the Balkans. It points to the imposition of religious identity from the outside—not by religious fundamentalists but rather by those (in this case, some Serbian leaders) for whom fixed notions of alterity rationalize conflict, as well as by others (the Western press and diplomatic corps, the UN) who attempt to mediate and “resolve” violence. The second quote is a Western journalist’s account of an Islamic school in Pakistan. It demonstrates the distrust of Islamic “fundamentalism” (itself a controversial label) prevalent in Western media and government circles, and also expresses the author’s Orientalist determination to understand the school’s teachings on his terms rather than their own.4 The third quote forms part of a fictional narrative about the neocolonialist clash of power and religion in the Congo. It also highlights the arrogance that accompanied much Christian missionary activity in Africa, even in the second half of the twentieth century. Each of these quotes, however, also indicates, in different ways, the degree to which our debates about religion in world politics reflect Enlightenment assumptions. That is to say, each associates religion with danger, dogma, or rigid conceptions of otherness.

Unacceptable Renewals

Unacceptable Renewals

The Heroic Tradition in Presidential Rhetoric

As I prepared this essay, my local cable company kindly provided me with a free weekend of Showtime and The Movie Channel. Happy to have any excuse to abandon the computer, I settled down to the longest movie I could find, a showing of the recent disaster epic Deep Impact. As many readers probably know, the film tells the story of an America facing an extinction level event—a big space rock is heading for Earth. What struck me about the film is its utter lack of evil. There are no bad people. Elijah Wood sacrifices his chance for safety to save the girl he loves. The astronauts, led by Robert Duvall, sacrifice themselves to save the world. The star reporter, played by Tea Leoni, sacrifices her chance for life to save a rival and her child. The American people as a whole sacrifice themselves to civility; as it seems the world is coming to an end, they do not rape, loot, or pillage. Most impressive is Morgan Freeman as the President of the United States. He tells the truth, he prays for the nation, and he renews our hope in a lovely speech at the end of the movie. A presidential speech ends this movie. Tellingly, there isn't even an explanation as to how or why a black man became president; in this America, he just is president. I decided that I could vote for Freeman—just as, in recent years, I have decided that I could vote for Kevin Klein (Dave), Michael Douglas (An American President), Bill Pullman (Independence Day), Harrison Ford (Air Force One) and Martin Sheen (West Wing). Now many who know me would probably suggest that my preferences have far more to do with the liberal cast I've assembled than with anything else. Yet there is something more going on here. Over the past decade an unusual number of movies and television episodes have portrayed the presidency. With the sole exceptions of the evil Gene Hackman and the weak Ronny Cox in Absolute Power and Murder at 1600, respectively, the president is a good guy—and even Cox turns out okay. Equally important for our purposes, rhetoric is at the center of most of these films; at critical moments, Klein addresses a joint session of Congress, Douglas speaks to the assembled press corps, Pullman inspires his pilots with what is, in effect, Henry Vs battle speech, and Sheen regularly gives inspirational talks to his staff and the country. West Wing, in fact, has become something of a cultural phenomenon—it's

Managing the Press: Origins of the Media Presidency, 1897-1933.

Introduction - McKinley and the First White House Press Corps - Theodore Roosevelt: Publicity! Publicity! Publicity! - The White House and the First Executive Press Bureaus - Taft: Avoiding the Press - The Consequences of Nonpublicity - Wilson: Centralizing Executive Information - Executive Propaganda in World War I - Harding and Coolidge: Emergence of the Media Presidency - Cabinet Publicity in the 1920s - Herbert Hoover: The Press and Presidential Failure - Conclusion - Works Cited - Index

Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution (review)

Book Reviews 123 Buchanan concludes by returning to the central role voters play in this process, questioning why voters do not use their power to caU candidates to account more often. The answer he offers is that the "civic dispositions" of the voters/citizens does not give them a sense that they are "stakeholders" in this process, and so they often faü to exercise the power at their disposal. The typical voter response is "exit, not voice." This "thin civic programming" leads to a minimalist, not a robust conception of the role of the citizen in a democracy, but "We are dealing here with socialization effects, not intrinsic limitations" (165). Thus, the author suggests an "alternative civic programming," one that relies on only a relatively smaU number of voters "initiaUy perhaps no more that the 5 to 10 percent that has been the typical margin of victory in recent presidential elections" (167), to reinvigorate citizen power. This valuable and chaUenging book forces us to reexamine the role of the citizen in a political democracy in a way that both blames and praises the citizen. Buchanan offers hope for improving the presidential selection process by offering hope for a more meaningful form of political democracy, one in which the voter takes control and "forces" candidates to abandon the Nixon Credo in favor of more meaningful and viable forms of democratic campaigning. Michael A. Genovese Loyola Marymount University Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. By Timothy E. Cook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998; pp. xi + 289. $17.95 paper. Timothy E. Cook, professor of political science at WUliams CoUege, has written an important book, making a compeUing case that the news media are a political institution and that journalists are political actors. Many scholars have argued that journalists are biased, but this book carefuUy examines the historically close relationship between the government and the mass media and the way news organizations have consistently played a key role in governing that often has not been supportive of democracy. The argument is supported theoreticaUy by an approach that emphasizes American political development—the comparative politics of institutions over time—and a focus on the "new institutionaUsm" that is receiving increased attention in political science. Cook exhibits impressive knowledge of the general literature on mass communication and the more narrowly focused literature on political communication. Too often studies that focus on political communication are not informed by theory and research of specialists in communications. In several respects this book represents a much-needed synthesis. In the introductory chapter, Cook states that he is more interested in developing than testing an empirical theory of the news media as an institution. Theoretical development is necessary according to Cook because the narrow field of political communication has been dominated with a concern with media effects and has 124 Rhetoric & Public Affairs neglected the implications of research findings. Sociologists and critical theorists, on the other hand, have been wiUing to view the media as an institution, but have not emphasized its role in governance. Furthermore, journalists traditionaUy have discouraged others from viewing them as poUtical actors and in fact do not see themselves in political terms. Cook is also interested in evaluating the news media as a political institution. SpecificaUy, he asks whether the news media have the capacity to assist in governance and accountabUity consistent with democracy. Chapters two and three are given to a consideration of the historical development of the relationship of the press and government. Cook's central argument is that the press has always been supported by government policies and practices or by political parties. Until half way through the nineteenth century newspapers were sponsored by political parties and printing contracts, as weU as access to government officials as an aspect of patronage. The politics of the early years of the RepubUc encouraged a partisan press, but in the latter half of the century the press became more commercialized with the growth of mass circulation newspapers and the focus of news became less ideological. Advertisers provided the financial support for newspapers, replacing parties. The process of news making changed as the Washington press corps grew. Cook is careful...

McCarthyism Revisited: TRB's Story

Introduction On February 9, 1950, Republican Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin delivered a Lincoln Day speech before Ohio County Republican Women's Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. The exact number of Communists junior senator from Wisconsin claimed were in State Department was subject of great debate during next four years and beyond.1 The idea that U.S. government may have large numbers of card-carrying Communists in State Department turned up heat in a Cold War that previously had been fueled by events such as conviction of alleged spy Alger Hiss for perjury and U.S. policy toward China (Griffith 44-45). When McCarthy delivered his speech, Richard L. Strout was in his seventh year as New Republic's Wire or columnist, as well as his twenty-fifth year as a Washington correspondent for Christian Science Monitor.2 One of steadiest hands and minds in American is what Herbert Mitgang wrote in New York Times Magazine (Mitgang 63), while Dwight Jensen wrote, in Biographical Dictionary of American Journalists, that Strout was one of those rare reporters who became idolized by their colleagues during their (McKerns 681). The New Republic and Christian Science Monitor were main publications Strout wrote for during his lengthy career, but his work also appeared in New York Times Magazine, Nation, North American Review, Reader's Digest, and Saturday Review. He won many national awards and received a special Pulitzer citation for lifetime achievement in journalism. Strout was a significant Washington, D.C., journalist. Many historians have placed heavy blame on press for McCarthy's nearly five-year reign. James Boylan wrote that elite of Washington press corps failed to meet test in basic journalistic sense of offering an account that could stand even rough historical scrutiny (Boylan 31). David M. Oshinsky hinted that besides some notable exceptions the press was quite fond of while biographer Fred J. Cook asserted that generally speaking McCarthy's charges would make headlines on front page while denial would not (Oshinsky 188, Cook 178). Other historians have been kinder to press. Richard H. Rovere documented a large segment of most powerful of press that was always hostile to McCarthy, and Edwin R. Bayley contended that reporting of McCarthy in press was no less thorough than press covering Watergate, but one difference was that people in early 1950s did not care (Rovere 269, Bayley 216). Regardless of general comments pro and con about press coverage of McCarthy and any previous research, documenting Strout's struggle against McCarthyism, both publicly and privately, adds to understanding of broad effects of McCarthy era. Strout's writings in New Republic and Christian Science Monitor, and his personal thoughts revealed in his communications with Monitor management and letters to his family, provide another eyewitness account of a troubling era in U.S. history. Additionally, complications arising from doublelife Strout led as anonymous TRB and working for conservative Monitor are intriguing if not enlightening about pressures on reporters during McCarthy era. This study, like Daniel Pfaff's research into dynamics between Joseph Pulitzer II and two of his top editors at St. Louis PostDispatch during McCarthy era, qualifies as a study of freedom and equity in journalism because of what it reveals about of news editorial policy making in one of country's most important daily newspapers (Pfaff 53). Of course difference between Pfaff's approach and this study is that inner workings and policies of Monitor collide with Strout's outside writings as TRB. This study also has similarities with Karen S. …

Andrew Cohen's Washington

Last December, Bill Clinton invited the national press corps to a year-end meditation on his presidency. Over the course of 93 minutes -- the longest presidential news conference in recent memory -- Clinton answered all of the usual questions with his usual artfulness. Still, at the end of the day, the only real news was his announcement that he had found a name for his new dog.That Clinton had little to say wasn't surprising. Nineteen-ninety-seven was a year of inertia and frustration for him, and it was not uncharacteristic of most of his administration. While it was fashionable to call Clinton a lame duck after his re-election in 1996, the truth is that by then he was already ineffective. Indeed, long before the world learned of Monica Lewinsky and of the crippling allegations of sexual impropriety and criminality, Clinton had already become a diminished president in a diminished presidency -- a reality unlikely to change in his remaining two years in office.In 1997, Clinton was thwarted on virtually every major policy he proposed at home and abroad. The treaty on global warming -- which the United States signed in Kyoto, Japan, and which Clinton calls a hallmark of his presidency -- was declared 'dead on arrival' in the Senate, which must ratify it. The treaty on landmines was greeted a little more favourably in the Senate but Clinton, well aware of its probable fate, refused to sign it. Even more humiliating was the refusal of the House of Representatives to renew his request for 'fast-track' authority to negotiate trade agreements, which it had granted him in 1994 (as it had every president since 1974). What made the defeat especially galling -- in truth, Clinton withdrew the measure fearing he would lose it on a vote -- was that Clinton had more support for the measure among Republicans than Democrats.Clinton has even suffered the erosion of his powers of appointment. He was forced to bypass the Senate and name an 'acting' assistant attorney general because the Republicans refused to confirm his nominee. He was forced to withdraw the name of William Weld, the able if outspoken former Governor of Massachusetts, as ambassador to Mexico; he was far too liberal for the Republicans, and they refused to give him a hearing.That was only last year's harvest of tears. Since he withdrew his initiative on health care reform in 1994 -- the most serious setback of his presidency -- Clinton has been loathe to propose anything too ambitious to Congress. His reluctance has only deepened since the storm broke over his White House last winter. Of the dozen or more proposals he made in his State of the Union address, none has been enacted by Congress. Most recently, it turned down his much-heralded anti-tobacco legislation and campaign finance reform, and rejected his nomination for secretary of the air force.Abroad, Clinton can boast about expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement and establishing the World Trade Organization, blunting North Korea's nuclear capacity, and brokering peace in the Middle East and Bosnia. But all were accomplished early in his first term. Since then his diplomacy has largely failed. His foreign policy seems without principle or consistency, governed only by a creeping neo-isolationism that Americans seem happy to embrace in the aftermath of the cold war. Even when the United States wants to become more engaged, it is rebuffed, as if its internationalist muscles have atrophied. Clinton was unable to reassemble the old Gulf War coalition to make good on his threats against Iraq in February, and in August, when Saddam Hussein once again suspended weapons inspections, he didn't even try.Although his trip to China in June was hailed as a success, he has not been able to change in any significant way Chinas position on the big questions: self-determination for Tibet, the security of Taiwan, the preservation of democracy in Hong Kong and the protection of human rights. …

Witness for the plaintiff: Ethical considerations of being a libel plaintiff's expert witness

This article argues that a potential expert witness's decision about testifying for a libel plaintif should not be driven by an unexamined loyalty to journalists, to the press, or to broad principles of expression. Real harm done to a plaintif by libel and the advantage to the press corps and to the system of expression of having a knowledgeable expert testihing for a libel plaintif are discussed as factors that might outweigh the traditional loyalties. An ethical framework is offered to help journalists and journalism educators make a reasoned determination based on what is fair and responsible for the plaintiffand for the defendant.

The marginal majority: Women war correspondents in the Salvadoran Press Corps Association (SPCA)

This article explores gender politics in the Salvadoran Press Corps Association (SPCA), starting with analysis of the Hemingwayesque myths and ritual performances which dominate corps culture. While men use these rituals as a means of escaping the stultifying disciplines of corporate press institutions, women correspondents experience them as yet another layer of stultifying discipline, an obstacle in the way of individual and collective attempts to negotiate or reform the field. Gender discrimination, discipline, coping strategies, and feminist alternatives will be analyzed. The data presented were derived from ethnographic study conducted during the final years of the Salvadoran war (1990–1992).

War Stories: The Culture of Foreign Correspondents.

What are the influences on war correspondents as they report on news in war-torn countries? Originally published in 1995, Mark Pedelty explores the lives, work and culture of an international press corps. He writes about the reporters who covered El Salvador’s civil war. Going beyond those specifics to look at the institutions, practices, myths, and rituals that pattern the work of journalists everywhere. He tells us the stories of war correspondents at work and at play, as they cover the news. The myth, developed in part from the movies we watch and from CNN, is that war is reported from the front lines. More often, it is reported from the front office as journalists sit around waiting for something big to happen. Pedelty looks at the context in which they construct their reports. Unnamed diplomats in the US Embassy feed stories to reporters, who are careful not to alienate these crucial sources by adding background information that might be perceived as ideological. Reporters are also constrained by the pens and preferences of editors who work to narrow the focus of news reporting, removing necessary context in the process. By examining how news stories are actually produced, Pedelty highlights the elusiveness of the goal of objective journalism. We see how the biases of war correspondents are connected to structures of power, and how these biases affect actual journalistic practices. Pedelty also explores alternative possibilities for war reporting, including emerging alternative international news services and ways to deepen reporters’ understandings of the countries and problems they cover. Influenced by anthropology, communication studies, cultural studies, and sociology, this book will interest scholars and students in those fields, as well as journalists and anyone who watches, reads or listens to news.

On the Front Lines: Following America's Foreign Correspondents across the Twentieth Century.

From Sarajevo in 1914 to Baghdad in 1990 renowned foreign correspondent Michael Emery charts the difficulties facing his American colleagues covering overseas events. He tells the 'stories behind the stories' and the pressures faced by American reporters like Marguerite Higgins and Peter Arnett. Emery demonstrates the effects of censorship, propaganda, and 'disinformation' and argues for an independent and well-trained foreign press corps.

The California Capitol Press Corps

The California Capitol Press Corps

Impact of Journalism Instruction on Language Arts in Alaskan Schools

While Natives represent more than 16 percent of Alaska's population, they make up less than 8 percent of its press corps.(1) Recruitment of Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut journalism students proves difficult because the state's rural areas (where the majority live) are seldom served by newspapers, and television covers virtually no local news. The few Native journalists employed in Alaska are not high-profile role models, and most Native students cannot conceive of journalism as a viable profession.Although urban high schools in Alaska generally have well-developed journalism programs, small rural schools seldom do. Journalism's role in promoting democracy and self-determination is seldom discussed. Few teachers present journalism as a career option.(2) And rural school boards, focused on teaching basics, increasingly view journalism as an extracurricular activity.Native residents and their school boards show primary concern for the wide and growing disparity in educational attainment between Alaska's urban and rural Native students. Two decades ago, Alaska's participants in SAT/ACT tests scored slightly above the national average, but by 1989 the state had dropped slightly below the national norm. At that time, Native Alaskans ranked almost 50 percent lower than their Caucasian counterparts.(3) Their test scores continue to slide, and the Native drop-out rate (27 percent) is now twice the non-Native rate.(4)Mounting social ills also imperil Alaska's indigenous population. There is roughly a one-in-10 chance that a 15-year-old Native boy will kill himself or make a serious attempt to do so before the age of 25. Substance abuse is a major problem. Natives are 34 percent of Alaska's prison population but only 16 percent of the state's population.(5)In light of these figures, it would be an over-simplification to blame plummeting test scores solely on the educational system. However, innovative teaching methods are obviously needed to motivate students in this turbulent environment.To this end--and with an eye toward media recruitment--intensive use of journalism as a teaching tool was instituted in six rural schools in 1991-1992 by the Department of Journalism and Broadcasting, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and backed by the Alaska Schools Research Fund of the Alaska State Legislature.RationaleThe Alaska pilot program attempted to replicate, in part, previous research that showed students who study journalism do better in tests than those who do not. A 1987 survey of 19,249 students by the Journalism Education Association Commission on the Role of Journalism in Secondary Education showed that those involved in high school journalism projects had higher ACT Composite and English scores than those who were not. Studies also showed that exposure to reading and writing through journalism apparently had more relevance for college-bound students than traditional exposure through British and English classics or other required English courses.(6)Two years later, New York University researchers reported that middle school students who read newspapers in the classroom developed better writing skills than non-newspaper readers and, at the sixth-grade level, improved their reading comprehension.(7)MethodPilot Design. This program focused on training high school teachers to teach journalism as they established classes to produce school newspapers as a unit in an English class. Routine academic tests of students performed annually by the schools provided the objective criterion by which progress (or lack of it) was gauged. Site scores were compared with those of similar schools where journalism was not taught. In addition, pre-and post-tests were administered at each site providing journalism instruction.Teacher evaluation of the program and observations by the researcher who conducted in-service teaching sessions (fall and spring) at each school also offered insight. …

The Telegraph, Censorship, and Politics at the Outset of the Civil War

A century before satellites flashed televised news reports to the nation, the telegraph offered many of the same possibilities—and posed many of the same problems—associated with instantaneous communication. When used by an aggressive metropolitan daily in the 1860s, the telegraph could put reports in readers' hands just hours after a correspondent had gleaned the information at a faraway site. More than journalism, however, was affected by this quickened pace of news transmission; institutions whose activities responded to news coverage—notably government and business— synchronized their practices and rhythms to accord with electrified journalism.1 During the Civil War, the telegraph made censorship both necessary and feasible. The speed at which stories moved over the wires could compromise wartime decision making and activities, while the telegraph was a convenient pressure point for constricting the flow of news. Reports of military preparations presented obvious problems because Northern papers quickly found their way into the hands of Confederate generals. But what about news of civil affairs? The unprecedented administrative tasks imposed on government by the Civil War, and the attendant political stresses, yielded a bonanza of news stories for the Washington press corps. Should correspondents file stories about sensitive matters—dissension in the cabinet, secret diplomatic negotiations, forthcoming presidential messages, and the like— knowing that such news could precipitate swings in already volatile public opinion, encourage business speculation, and perhaps imperil policies under

“Nonpublicity” and the Unmaking of a President: William Howard Taft and the Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy of 1909–1910

William Howard Taft may have been the last American President to take office without intending to seek public support by cultivating the press. During single term, from 1909 to 1913, he eschewed the tactics of managing presidential news coverage so vigorously applied by predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, and successor, Woodrow Wilson.(1) Instead, Taft preferred a laissez-faire approach to public opinion, based on the notion that accomplishments would speak for themselves. In a rare magazine interview in 1910, he stated that I hope for my administration is the accomplishment of definite results, which will be self-explanatory.(2) Richard A. Ballinger, Secretary of Interior, called the approach one of nonpublicity.(3)Taft's hands-off approach toward presidential publicity and subsequent failure to win re-election have been attributed variously to ineptness at politics, ignorance of the press, inability to visualize himself as a public person, and general failure to live up to the expectations of presidential behavior established by Roosevelt.(4) Biographer Henry F. Pringle argues that Taft's ultimate defeat was caused, in no small measure, by these repeated incessant headlines which, try as he might, he could not guide or control.(5) Other scholars suggest that reluctance to manage the press was rooted in minimalist, late-nineteenth-century view of the presidency itself.(6)This study assumes that, whatever its origins, nonpublicity was a deliberate choice by Taft, one whose outlines and consequences are as worthy of examination as presidential attempts at managing the press to influence public opinion.(7) The focus of the inquiry is relationship with the Washington, D.C., correspondents during first year as President, beginning in March 1909, and, particularly, on refusal to respond to highly publicized charges of corruption directed at Secretary of Interior Ballinger by the forester Gifford Pinchot and other progressive critics.(8)It suggests that the consequences of policy of nonpublicity were indicative of profound changes taking place in the relationship between presidents and the press early in the twentieth century. In not trying to cultivate the Washington, D.C., correspondents, Taft failed to conform to the expectations of a new relationship between presidents and the press established during the administrations of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley, who became President in 1897, and Roosevelt, who succeeded him in 1901, encouraged the growth of a nascent White House press corps. To interest these correspondents in the presidency as a source of news--and to shape that news from the President's perspective--McKinley and Roosevelt established practices that formed the basis for an institutionalized relationship.(9) These practices included supplying the correspondents with information and guidance for news stories, both on a regularly scheduled basis and on demand; providing advance copies of speeches and statements; arranging frequent opportunities to chat with the President, even if off the record, and producing news on presidential trips and at summer retreats. Under Roosevelt, who was, as admiring aide, Archie Butt, remarked, his own press agent, the flow of information from the President to the correspondents increased dramatically. In addition to The Editor and Publisher, April 17, 1909 telling the correspondents views, Roosevelt also guided what they wrote by telling them what the news was and how they should prepare it.(10)To take advantage of this growing supply of news from the White House, the correspondents established parallel working practices to listen to what the President or secretary wanted to tell them, to compose that information into news stories, and to pass those stories along to their editors. The White House became a regular beat, an addition to the late nineteenth century focus on Congress. …

THE PRESS AND THE PERSIAN GULF WAR

Abstract : The subject of press pools and escorts has been frequently written about, and the commentaries have been infrequently kind. Indeed, two negative myths have grown popular in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and they need to be debunked. The first is that the press didn't do a good job covering Operation Desert Storm. And the second is that reporters didn't have much of a chance to report the war. As the number of troops in the desert grew, so did the number of reporters to cover them. The U.S. and international press corps went from zero on 2 August, to 17 on the first pool, to 800 by December, and to nearly 1400 just before the ground war started. Most of those reporters, the good ones anyway, wanted to be out where the action is. But with hundreds of fiercely independent reporters seeking to join up with combat units, we concluded that when the combat started, we'd have no choice but to rely on pools. We agonized over this decision, because the part of my job we dislike the most is setting up pools and keeping them going. Pools rub reporters the wrong way, but there was simply no way for us to open up a rapidly moving front to reporters roaming the battlefield. We believe the pool system did three things: it got reporters out to see the action, it guaranteed that Americans at home got reports from the scene of the action, and it allowed the military to accommodate a reasonable number of journalists without overwhelming the units that were fighting the enemy. Whatever else the press arrangements in the Persian Gulf may have been, they were a good faith effort on the part of the military to be as fair as possible to the large number of reporters on the scene. They were a good faith effort to get as many reporters as possible out with troops during a highly mobile, modern ground war. And they were a good faith effort to allow as much freedom in reporting as possible while still preventing the enemy from knowing what we were up to.

The U.S. Press Corps Abroad Rebounds

A new census of American media correspondents abroad shows a sharp reversal of what had been steadily declining numbers, an easing of its historically heavy emphasis on Europe and an increasing reliance on female journalists in foreign news bureaus.

The Press Corps of Spaceship Earth

After a burst of interest in environment news after the first Earth Day in 1970, the number of reporters assigned to cover environment news declined sharply. Today, there are fewer reporters on such beats than in 1970, raising questions about newspapers' commitment to such coverage.

A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam.

Outspoken, professional and fearless, Lt. Col. John Paul Vann went to Vietnam in 1962, full of confidence in America's might and right to prevail. He was soon appalled by the South Vietnamese troops' unwillingness to fight, by their random slaughter of civilians and by the arrogance and corruption of the US military. He flouted his supervisors and leaked his sharply pessimistic - and, as it turned out, accurate - assessments to the US press corps in Saigon. Among them was Sheehan, who became fascinated by the angry Vann, befriended him and followed his tragic and reckless career. Sixteen years in the making, A Bright Shining Lie is an eloquent and disturbing portrait of a man who in many ways personified the US war effort in Vietnam, of a solider cast in the heroic mould, an American Lawrence of Arabia. Blunt, idealistic, patronising to the Vietnamese, Vann was haunted by a shameful secret - the fact that he was the illegitimate son of a 'white trash' prostitute. Gambling away his career, Vann left the army that he loved and returned to Vietnam as a civilian in the pacification programme. He rose to become the first American civilian to wield a general's command in war. When he was killed in 1972, he was mourned at Arlington cemetery by leading political figures of the day. Sheehan recounts his astonishing story in this intimate and intense meditation on a conflict that scarred the conscience of a nation.

The 1990s

The outgoing president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors challenges editors to form a new “Press Corps” – newspapers' Peace Corps. News people in the 1990s must retool their thinking and rededicate themselves to action and change in order for newspapers to keep pace with a changing America.