Panama and the Press

PANAMA AND THE PRESS. Michael D. Mosettig S, "ince the time of Teddy Roosevelt, the nation of Panama has packed a symbolic and emotional punch in American politics far outweighing the dwindling strategic significance ofthe American-built canal. Ifanyone in the political or policy-making arenas or the press had forgotten just how much that little country manages to stir American passions, they received yet two more lessons in October and December of 1989. Within a three month span, the United States was given two opportunities to strike down military strongman Manuel Antonio Noriega. The first failed, making the second all but inevitable. While the merits ofthe Bush administration's actions and policies can be argued elsewhere, what the events of Panama strikingly demonstrated yet again (as if we needed further examples after Grenada and the Falklands), was that the clash of cultures between the press and the military is a constant. The lessons provide particularly strong warnings ofthe perils—for the press and the public alike—of trying to follow a story, especially military combat, from afar. Even in an era of instantaneous telecommunications, the media and public can be manipulated relatively easily if the press is removed from the action and dependent on official sources in Washington D.C. Lingering antipathy between the two sides since the Vietnam war Michael D. Mosettig is senior producer for foreign affairs and defense at the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. A veteranjournalist offoreign and domestic affairs, his articles have appeared in numerous newspapers and magazines. Mr. Mosettig's book on television and foreign affairs, No Instant Replays: Television Joins the Game ofNations, will be published next year by Lexington Books. 179 180 SAISREVIEW merely gives dramatic edge to a reality that has existed since the mobile foreign correspondent began wiring dispatches from the front—warriors and scribes rarely have parallel interests, and cooperation between them is never easy. The Prelude: October 1989 The first news of the coup against Noriega came not in dramatic bulletins from Panama but in rumors and bits of information traded between news organizations, Capitol Hill, and executive agencies. Perhaps that was a fitting overture for a crisis that would come to symbolize the gap between public and background information and epitomize the mishandling of both a coup and the public relations surrounding it. As in virtually all coups, information from Panama was murky. But what the fragmentary reports from Panama brought home was that in an era of round-the-clock satellite television news, the press may have as much information at hand as the crisis managers at the White House and Pentagon, or more alarmingly, as much as the officials in the embassy or the CIA station. The fact that Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), when calling the White House for information about the coup, was told to watch the Cable News Network (CNN) typifies an information profusion that does not necessarily translate into critical policy makers being well informed. The lack of adequate information or intelligence later became the reason or excuse for the hands-off policy that developed, but it was a particularly galling rationale for inactivity in a country whose army is practically a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States. Also early on, as in most coups backed by a major power, there was an effort to establish deniability should the coup fail. Inevitably, such an effort creates its own credibility problem as details of the great power's involvement dribble out in the days, weeks, and years that follow. The history and legend ofthe Kennedy administration, and to some extent the resolve of more recent American governments, is still clouded by the legacy of the U.S.-assisted 1963 coup against South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem. There is no indication that the Bush administration had given much thought to coping with this almost insoluble dilemma. And, of course, what no administration prepares for is the sniping and back-biting through leaks that occur when things go awry. News of the coup was first broadcast in the United States around 10:45 on Tuesday morning, October 3. The president, the secretary of state, and the national security adviser were at that moment...