International coverage resurfaces

One of the greatest effects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is that Americans--many of whom would normally disregard international events--must now reassess their global view and take notice of world news. After the Cold War ended in 1989, most major media outlets scaled back their foreign coverage, citing low audience interest and financial constraints as factors. But with the events of Sept. 11 still fresh in Americans' minds, the media has accordingly shifted its focus outward and concentrated on the worldwide ramifications of the attacks. This trend must continue.

A recent Pew Research Center poll indicates that 89 percent of those surveyed have a favorable impression of the press' attack coverage. That's a tremendous jump in the media's approval ratings when examined in relation to pre-Sept. 11 media attitudes. Journalism is traditionally one of the less prestigious professions in America. Public reaction to many important news stories in the 1990s-including the O.J. Simpson trial, the Clinton scandals and the numerous celebrity death extravaganzas-showed high initial interest in the stories, but this was eventually followed by a sense of media overkill in each case.

Running parallel to this distrust and sensationalism was a significant decrease in international coverage. The demise of the Cold War was the impetus for this decrease. America's new standing as the world's lone superpower lulled most Americans into a false sense of security. We had triumphed over both fascism and communism; surely there was little else that could challenge our security now! The Gulf War seemed to validate that worldview: The war was quickly fought and decisively won, at least according to the first Bush administration's objectives. In President Bill Clinton's years, we witnessed an unprecedented economic boom that caused us to become even less concerned with international events, save for the conflicts in Iraq and Kosovo.

The three national news networks and major American newspapers and magazines all scaled back their coverage of foreign news on a grand scale. In justifying this, news executives cited research showing widespread audience disinterest and signs of financial burdens on their own operations. This concern for the bottom line was not surprising. Before the 1980s, it was expected that the news divisions of ABC, CBS and NBC would lose money. But the networks have now been absorbed by large corporations. The presidents of the network news divisions were ordered by their corporate bosses to cut costs, and the logical step was to scale back foreign coverage by eliminating bureaus and firing correspondents and producers.

International news thus became a boutique item in the post-Cold War era. You could find it if you tried, but it was not readily available if you didn't have access to cable or the Internet. Some programs, including Nightline and 60 Minutes, should be commended for their attention to global affairs since 1989, but those programs have been the exception rather than the rule.

Cable news networks have had the opportunity to pick up where the broadcast networks left off, but in most cases they have not done so. CNN has usually paid more attention to world affairs than its competitors. But in the months before the attacks, CNN was attempting to revamp its coverage to include less reporting and more analysis. The Fox News Channel has been a tremendous ratings draw over the past year, featuring a feisty and opinionated lineup of prime-time pundits; Fox has concentrated on domestic stories and is still developing an overseas presence. The two signature programs of NBC's cable networks, Hardball with Chris Matthews--a program for which I interned last summer--and The News with Brian Williams, favor American politics. At Hardball I noticed that the show's producers would hold off on foreign coverage unless the stories were developing into major conflicts. This is understandable, as Hardball is a niche program whose audience is primarily interested in the nuts and bolts of Washington politics. However, neither Fox nor MSNBC has developed a program that is devoted only to world news.

Throughout the '90s, the media frequently gave us financial tips, reports of new drug treatments and the latest in entertainment news. These sorts of stories that the media once covered extensively now seem relatively inconsequential; they are not compatible with our stature in the world. The global reach of the Internet and the ease of travel have made the world much smaller, but America has become more insular throughout the past decade. Our dazzling economic success imbued us with the feeling that if we withheld our attention from global matters, we would not be affected.

The inadequate media coverage of terrorism in the '90s left many Americans unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks. The news executives and producers who make the calls on what to report are now presented with a unique opportunity. With the media's approval ratings at an apex and in light of record audience levels for news programs, journalists must be vigilant in informing Americans of every aspect of this battle against terrorism. Sadly, the events of Sept. 11 were a violent shock to our system, awakening us from a decade-long slumber. We cannot allow ourselves to fall asleep again. Complacency is our worst enemy, and terrorism knows no boundaries.