The CNN Television anchor is proving his weight in journalistic gold. Not only can he get deep truths from Angelina Jolie, he can show up in a war zone and find contender material. At least for clothing.
The green military shirt he wore Saturday while reporting from Beirut gave him the authority of a deeply embedded journalist. Vaguely Israeli Defense Forces, yet also vaguely Lebanese Army, he could be in bed with either side and smoothly come off as a man of action. Or at least a judge on America's Top Model.
If only Cooper could figure out what questions to ask for a real reality show. Like a news program. Or perhap he could simply take the mediocre questions he has right now and try asking them of the right people.
Example. Tonight Cooper starts with a clip of a British diplomat touring a devastated Lebanon who states that the Israelis have completely over-reacted.
Next Cooper says he wants to get a response and introduces a retired American military officer. But instead of looking to the retired soldier for his view of the diplomat's take (as "in your view, what are they actually looking to do in so much destruction of Beirut?"), Cooper gives the military man around 45 seconds to give a basic overview of Israel's geographic lines of attack, then cuts to a commercial.
Who does he finally ask what the military logic of destroying massive numbers of buildings and killing a whole lot of civilians? Not the potentially insightful American military analyst. Rather Cooper points that query to an Israeli military press officer, which is a bit like asking a Hezbollah representative about what they hope to get in bombing Haifa. The only answer you'd receive from either are strident banalities.
Sure enough, like any bureaucrat (or publicist) facing something he doesn't want to address, the man ignores the question completely, blathering on in official-speak about Israel defending itself against the terrorist. Whew. That was worth holding your breath for.
So then Cooper interviews the international editor of an Arabic news service, going for the jugular this time. Does Israel's bombing lead the Lebanese civilian to feel angry at Hezbollah? Fair question, if only it hadn't been asked 956,000 times before.
But this time we actually get an interesting answer. The editor says what's need is a completely new Middle Eastern framework, a type of which he's assured this latest violence promises to deliver. Hmmm. New framework. He certainly isn't suggesting Hezbollah is going to be defeated. So then that means Israel... who knows. We don't.
Because instead of attempting to examine the specifics of this supposed new framework, Cooper changes the subject, asking the editor another softball. What does he think inspired Hezbollah in their actions? Surprisingly, the editor smacks at it with panache. It's easy. The Hezbollah acted with great foresight. They simply were out to free all the Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.
Does Cooper ask exactly how many and what prisoners the editor means? No. It doesn't matter. Probably because it would be going off script, since so few other journalists have asked, or bothered to explore.
In truth, there are three such victims Hezbollah claims as being held by Israel, the chief named Samir Kuntar, a real charmer, who in 1979 snuck into Israel and shot a father in front of the man's four year old daughter, then smashed the girl's head to pieces. But fair is fair. After spending years in jail, doesn't the man deserve a break? He already has his own website.
Regardless, Cooper is getting real nuggets of genius here. To free a man who many people would not consider worth two spits, and apparently two other similar like-minded folks (one of whom Israel claims not to be holding) Hezbollah is willing to drag all of Lebanon into war.
But does Anderson Cooper challenge the Hezbollah-supportive editor on such bloody logic? No. He'd rather get deep insights on Israel's strategy from a man who is clearly as attuned to Israel as Ehud Olmart is to the lives of the average Lebanese.
Great, another non-partisan view. According to the editor, Israel is not a rational state, it's a bunch of terrorists . And that's why Nasrallah took his wise and courageous actions. Here's the logic. A few years ago Israel exchanged similarly Hezbollah-kidnapped soldiers (and a shady Israeli businessman who, given the amazing generosity in the ratio of the deal, must have been a spy) and so of course Israel should return to the negotiating table.
Anderson Cooper didn't have much more to ask of such brilliant thinking, so he thanked his guest and then I turned off the television.
Honestly, it doesn't take much guts or smarts on my part to criticize a reporter in the midst of horrific carnage who seems as overwhelmed as a deer caught in the headlights. Unlike me, an anonymous blogger in America, Cooper is a field-based anchor under the glare of a global spotlight. He's also a journalist who, beyond recent celebrity gushes, has been a bright light for CNN. He's also fairly brave for just showing up in an area where journalists have a history of getting kidnapped, themselves, or inadvertant victims of snipers and bombs.
If my own anger is less helpful than Cooper's questions, my apologies. It just strikes me that we're hearing way too many of the same questions. Again, if they were asked of people better able to answer them that would be one thing. They're not. And it's not just Cooper or CNN.
My favorite podcast/radio show, for instance, Radio Open Source, has done a bunch of coverage here. But producer/host Chris Lydon, who I admire greatly, seems to be ghettoizing his guests. And the issues. Israelis and pro-Israelis are interviewed together. And those critical of Israel are also interviewed together. And ultimately nobody is ever really challenged.
In one maddening segment he had on an Israeli blogger who giddily admited that she was part of a mood in her country that felt energized by the righteousness of the war. Almost happy to all be on the same page, if just for a moment.
It was a wonderful moment that could have been opened up. The woman was being honest. I was hoping Lydon would start to explore how such psychic narratives might possibly extend, as well as justify, the violence. He didn't have to attack his guest. But it's an issue waiting to be unpacked. On both sides. Instead, for whatever reason, he just let it play out as a laugh.
Again, perhaps I'm asking more than is reasonable at such emotional times. At the moment, Lydon may have simply seen it as a hornet's nest without room for the smart question. But it seems like other basic questions are failing to be asked of all the parties.
From the Lebanese, why did the Shiites have to depend on Hezbollah for basic social services? And given the blatant amount of weaponry Hezbollah (a non-government militia) was bringing in to the country (10,000-14,000 missiles), how did Lebanon's leadership, but also the Western powers, basically ignore it for so long. As they know in theater, you see a gun set out on stage, it's going to be used. More simply, given Syria's aiding of Hezbollah, what ever happened to the UN probe into their possible assassination of Lebanon's prime minister Rafik Harari?
Outside in the real world theater, anyone knows that violence loves a vacuum. For the Israelis, when it comes to the Palestinians, what are they doing (and what have they done) to do anything to help an inch so far as to build a sustainable Palestinian economy? It's good and fine to act unilaterally and get self-righteous about what you've left behind. But might it be in your interest to do what you can to make sure that a population decimated by five years of war doesn't slip into an even more wretched chaos? What the hell are they thinking?
Most frustrating to me is that both sides and, worse, the news media and political activists involved with them, refuse to look at the micro-issues that underlie the macro results. Again, in the midst of such violence, maybe all of us are just stunned. Either we act decisively (in terms of fighting or rationally fleeing) or we tune out. I'm not sure. I have no answers. But next time I'll have some other basic questions that are worth asking to move on from here.
Jonathan Field
June 22, 2006
Comments