NATO Split Over Iraq? From the Journalists' Perspective

Real Audio of Briefing

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. We're very pleased to have what we can, I think, now call a periodic series of partnership programs with the Brookings Foundation, and the Shorenstein Center of Harvard University. I will just introduce the co-moderators, and then they will introduce you to our panel.

This is Stephen Hess, who is senior fellow at Brookings, and Marvin Kalb, who is the director of the Washington Office of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard.

Steve, please.

MR. HESS: Thank you very much. This is the 13th in a series called The Brookings/Harvard Forum on the Role of Information and the Media in the War on Terrorism. It is the second time we've had the pleasure of doing a program in conjunction with the Foreign Press Center here at the National Press Building. And we're most grateful to Jeff Bond, who is the director of this center, as well as Peter Kovich, the director of three foreign press centers in the United States. In fact, I saw Peter rushing out the door as we came in. He was going to the State Department to justify his budget. So, we can understand why he's not here.

The first time, which was about three months ago, we had the pleasure of meeting with correspondents from Tass, from the Soviet Union, excuse me, from Russia; from Turkey; from Mexico; and from Al- Jazeera in the Arab world.

Today, we turn our attention to another part of the world, and another three foreign correspondents here in the United States, where we were to have four, and we're very sorry that one of them, and that's Maurizio Molinari from La Stampa, who had come down from New York to be with us last night, sent me an email at 11:30, and sent me another at 7:30 this morning to say that his grandfather had died. He's so sorry not to be with us, and we're so sorry not to have him with us.

Our three Europeanists are, on my immediate left is Jean Jacques Mevel. In the American tradition, we'll call him JJ.

MR. MEVEL: That's fine with me.

MR. HESS: And next to him, in the center is Toby Harnden of the Daily Telegraph in the UK. On his left is Rudy Lentz from Deutsche Welle in Germany.

My co-host, who is going to start this session is Marvin Kalb, who's already been introduced.

This is a program that we thought about as the president gave his State of the Union speech, and talked about an axis of evil, and immediately sent teeth chattering around the world at what even looked like a split among our best and favorite friends in the NATO alliance. So, we thought we would put together a panel to talk about the next phase. Strangely enough, the first phase hasn't yet ended, in a very dramatic way right now in Afghanistan, and, in fact, sadly you may know that yesterday the Germans lost two soldiers from our international peacekeeping force, the Danes three, while Americans were on the ground in Operation Anaconda, French planes overhead were doing it. So when we sound perhaps very divisive, which, of course, we don't mean to, we're all civilized. We should remember that there are still things that hold us together and that we are, indeed, good and long allies.

I think we'll just start. How about that, Marvin?

MR. KALB: I think that anyone who has read an American newspaper over the past month or two has come upon one story after another about divisions, splits, within the NATO alliance, focused primarily on rumored, speculated about American action against Iraq. That has been the focus. Now, that has been in the American press.

Where I would like to start? Jean Jacques, tell us whether that is a theme that you are writing about from here? Is that a theme that your own paper, Figaro, is dealing with in Paris?

MR. MEVEL: If we're talking about Iraq, obviously, there was a very strong demand from my story at the time of the State of the Union for two reasons. One is obvious, I mean, this axis of evil is not exactly the phraseology we're using back in Europe.

And the second, which was more a void, actually, and which was really hotly felt in Europe, was that there was no mention of any European countries in this State of the Union. There wasn't any positive appreciation of the role of good faith of the U.N. or NATO. The closest we get to this was the usual greetings to the British allies. But, the name of Germany was not given, the name of France was not given. There was much talk about Russia, India, China, but nothing, zero.

MR. KALB: Were your feelings hurt?

MR. MEVEL: I mean, I can understand that people back in Paris, Berlin and London felt somewhat disappointed by the State of the Union.

MR. HESS: Specifically, they responded to you, the next day you had a bulletin in response to them.

MR. MEVEL: Yes. And beyond that, that was, what, three or four weeks ago, what you can feel in the past week, the past days, is a real improvement. You had those criticisms by the French Foreign Ministry, those criticisms in Germany, the criticisms by the British external relation commissar. But that was a couple of weeks ago. Actually, if you listen carefully to what's been said by Mr. Blair, by Mr. Schroeder and even by the French President Chirac, it's much more subdued, and it's much more supportive of what's going on now.

MR. KALB: Subdued or supportive, you're using both.

MR. MEVEL: Yes, because, I mean, there are nuances between the positions of the three countries.

But even Chirac went out yesterday saying, the French people, or the French government, or the French presidency does share the concern of the U.S. regarding the whole area. So there is a change going on.

MR. KALB: Do you find that same change, and would you agree with Jean Jacques that at the very beginning the German press was worked up on this issue, and that has eased off?

MR. LENTZ: I'm very happy to be able to say that so far we have an axis here between Paris and Berlin, because we both have the feeling that there's a certain unilateralism in the action, at least the perception of unilateral action. And to put it in a classical German quote of Schiller, who said, in one of his works, very famous works: he said the most powerful is strongest acting alone. And this is the way we feel about the Americans at the moment. And your press is also reporting in that direction.

So, do we need allies? Yes, to keep the political alliance alive. But do we really need them on a day-to-day basis? You don't see them; you don't hear of them. And thank you very much for caring of our losses, but we have a little bit the feeling that we are excluded in the decision-making process. So it's more or less about confrontation and the feeling of being misused to a certain extent in a global fight which has to be fought together and in solidarity. That means you have partners.

There was one clear word from the German foreign minister who said, we are partners, and we don't want to be satellites. And I think we have to talk about this misunderstanding or perception on the European side of the Atlantic because that really hurts the common cause.

To finish on a more cooperative tune, I think we absolutely agree on the cause. But, on the ways and means to reach that aim, I think there are differences, and we have to address those differences, and we have to find ways to better cooperate in those areas.

MR. KALB: Toby, the British have always been regarded and described as closest among all the European allies to the United States. Has the British press picked up this theme of division with respect to Iraq, and is that a theme in the press that one would read quite frequently?

MR. HARNDEN: Yes. It has been a very strong theme. In fact, we are splashing on the Iraq issue tomorrow and what America is going to do about it, and what's going to be happening at the U.N. I should say at the outset, it's a strange sort of position being British in Washington because, as I was talking the other day to a senior person at the Pentagon who said, on this whole issue of unilateralism, and, of course, when we say, we're going to go it alone, we mean you and us.

MR. LENTZ: They are saying the same to the Germans.

MR. HARNDEN: Perhaps. And one of the most hawkish Pentagon people I know is saying to me today that, you know, allies don't really matter that much when we're tackling Iraq. We need some in the Middle East, but European allies don't matter. And I said, what about Britain? Oh, yes, yes, Britain as well, but that's just taken as a given.

What I felt about the State of the Union was, and I think Stephen mentioned or used the word "chattering," and I think that's an interesting word, and I think we've got to draw a distinction between what newspaper editors write and what newspaper reporters write, and commentators. And what government ministers, elites, talk about and write about. And what the feelings are of ordinary people. And I think there's often a big disparity between these two things. The best example I can remember recently was Guantanamo Bay, because we had what Donald Rumsfeld called hyperventilation among the European elites over this issue, but the ordinary people really thought everything was fine. And, in fact, perhaps they were being treated too kindly. I mean, the Daily Mirror, or the Mirror, as it's now called, which is a tabloid newspaper that took up this issue most stridently, Guantanamo Bay. They did a poll of their readers after all this coverage about torture, "And what next, Mr. Blair? Electrodes?" And they found that 91 percent of their readers supported the American position on the detainees.

So I think it's very important to draw the distinction between ordinary people, and the people you hear about in the press the whole time talking about this.

MR. KALB: Jean Jacques, in the French media at large now, can one perceive a split in opinion, some part of the French media being pro-American and the other part being skeptical of America?

MR. MEVEL: The usual divisions between the right and left, and I think that's a prism which is throughout Europe, the right side being more Americanophile, and the left side being more into American bashing. But is there a split, I don't know.

MR. KALB: Then, following your own definition, among the "right" --

MR. MEVEL: Which I'm supposed to represent.

MR. KALB: Which you're supposed to represent at Figaro, does that mean that you are with the United States? For example, on Iraq, what is the editorial position of Figaro?

MR. MEVEL: It's been pretty soft.

MR. KALB: Pretty what?

MR. MEVEL: Soft, I mean, I would be in pain to tell you what exactly is the line of my newspaper on Iraq. And it's terrible to say, but that's the way it is. And, again, I just don't want to -- I don't think it's exactly original. I think most of the European press is like that. I mean, they wait for the rain to fall to either go outside or opt for their umbrella. I mean, I don't know.

MR. KALB: Rudy, what about in Germany, could you say and could you point to a major newspaper that is outspokenly pro-Bush administration American policy vis-a-vis Iraq?

MR. LENTZ: Let me hand the question back to you. I mean, is there a clear Bush position on the Iraq question? I hear rumors, one saying we have to replenish the ammunition depots, we have to refill them before we can start any action, so that can take a couple of months. The State Department gives a different signal. So this seems to me a process where the administration tries to find out how far they can go with their threat to punish, or to do something, but I think they don't have their act in order. That's what we try to explain to the Europeans, to our side, the recipients.

And, secondly, to answer your question, I don't think that everybody -- not in the press and not in the public -- is eager to take action. There is a reluctance to carry the war on towards other areas, especially onto those just mentioned within the axis.

MR. KALB: Did you think originally Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was invoked almost immediately after 9-11, and you said an attack on one is an attack on all, that the United States would limit its counter-terrorist action just to Afghanistan? I mean, did you not at that time immediately say, whoops, Iraq is next?

MR. LENTZ: Nobody thought it would be a carte blanche for any further actions. That was quite true. But maybe, in hindsight, we would not --

MR. KALB: It would not be a carte blanche?

MR. LENTZ: It would not be carte blanche. Maybe in hindsight, it was a little bit broad, and a left many options open which weren't meant in the very beginning when this Article 5 was set in place.

MR. HARNDEN: I thought it was a very interesting process after September 11th. Clearly, there was a very, very intense shock to the people of America, and that was experienced to some extent, but to a lesser extent, in Europe. But I think what we had afterwards was Bush consciously building up his multilateralist credentials. And so all the people who had been describing Bush as an ignorant Texan cowboy, all the rest of it, before September 11th, suddenly started saying, oh, no, no, he's really good now, he's multilateralist, he's listened, he's bought into the real world. Colin Powell is the person who is in the ascendancy. And, the Guardian, which is the most left wing, mainstream, newspaper in Britain, was an example of this. They had a very strong anti-American, America bashing element, editorial element, but they also had an element of people saying, no, Bush is okay, he's multilateralist.

But now we've gotten to the stage, the axis of evil in the State of the Union speech really pushed the argument on, and it created a space between Europe and America, and really I think what's happening now is, the success of that speech, because Europe is catching up, and if you look at what Tony Blair and Jack Straw have been saying in recent days, we're fully behind America. Two weeks ago, very senior people, perhaps the most senior person in the British embassy would not be drawn out at all on what British policy was towards Iraq, or what British policy towards American policy on Iraq was. So I think what we're seeing is the State of the Union dragging the argument on, and dragging the European allies along with it.

And it creates a space between Europe and America, and I think what's happening now is, the success of that speech, because Europe is catching up, and if you look at what Tony Blair and Jack Straw have been saying in recent days, that we're fully behind America, two weeks ago I can tell you very senior people, perhaps the most senior person in the British embassy would not be drawn at all on what British policy was in Iraq, or what British policy towards American policy was. So what you've seen is the State of the Union dragging the argument on, and dragging the European allies along with it.

MR. HESS: I'm sort of fascinated, because I'm getting a far more kinder and gentler European sense of what's gong on in the United States in this regard than I had expected to get. Does this in any way reflect the degree in which you now have access at the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House, that they're doing a better job than they've been known to at times in the past, in terms of selling their position through you, and also through the foreign ministries.

MR. HARNDEN: I don't think so, to be honest. I've actually found access, my personal access at the paper, in a sense, to have been worse since September 11th rather than better. I think it's because, from the British point of view, the Brits have been on board, so what's the point of working to persuade the Brits. Well, what you saw was the most popular media outlet in Washington was Al-Jazeera, all of a sudden. I went down to Guantanamo Bay, but the only reason I got on the plane to go to Guantanamo Bay was because the tabloid press in Britain had been kicking up such a stink. If we'd kept quiet about it, I wouldn't have been there.

MR. KALB: Now, I don't share Steve's view, by the way, that you guys are soft. I think you're being kind and polite in public, but I'm listening to the diplomatic nuances, for example, that Rudy has been giving us, that would suggest to me, and I'm reading here from a New York Times article from not long ago, a week or two ago, quoting Ivo Daalder of Brookings. You all know him. "Before September 11th, the U.S. and Europe were slowly drifting apart, now it looks like they're on a collision course." Now, Ivo may be overstating it here, but the focus that we're talking about is Iraq, and I don't hear a single one of you say that to the best of your knowledge, the government -- you don't represent the government, I appreciate that. But as you cover your government, have a sense of your government's view, that any of you are on board if the U.S. takes military action. You seem to say no flat out.

MR. HARNDEN: No, I think the British are on board.

MR. KALB: Even if there were action?

MR. HARNDEN: Yes, definitely.

MR. MEVEL: There are certainly elements of a position between different European countries on one side and America on the other side. But there is also a dynamic, which is -- I don't want to dwell too much into the diplomatic process. But by the end of May there is supposed to be a new sanction regime put in place by the Security Council, which would give a good opportunity for the Bush administration, if it wanted to find any kind of coalition, first to put people together, and then throw an ultimatum at the face of Saddam Hussein. If you asked these questions straight to French diplomats, they would look at you and say, yes, the Americans are the cowboys, they're going to smash the whole thing, et cetera. If you look at the actual process, I think that Bush threatening directly Saddam Hussein is the best power you can put behind a U.N. Security Council resolution. When I'm talking about dynamic that's where it is. Nobody would say, we are happy that George Bush is handling his revolver against Saddam Hussein, but privately they are definitely happy with that.

It's not so much a position as a dynamic, and everybody is being his own usual image. But I have the feeling deep down that everybody is playing the same game, and that there is an appointment to be met with Saddam Hussein this summer.

MR. KALB: When you use the expression deep down, as a former journalist I've had those feelings deep down also. But, I knew, however, where I was getting my information from. And in this period of time you represent three crucially important allies for the United States, very good journalists working here in Washington, are you getting cooperation from the administration in trying to understand American policy, and then explain it to your readers or viewers, listeners? And you spoke before, and I imagine this may or may not be part of what you're talking about, put that aside, but when you talk about senior people, embassies give briefings, where do you get information from? How dependent are you on the American press, on the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS, NPR, in getting your information. I wonder if you could help us with that.

Start, Toby.

MR. HARNDEN: Well, I think there's one very practical day to day factor, which is the time difference. We have to follow stories by lunch time, which doesn't give us very much time to go out and go to seminars, and go to these conferences. And we can't follow the U.S. daily newspaper cycle. So there's no doubt that I think we draw heavily on the American press, but also we've got in my bureau we've got two people in Washington, we've got one in New York, and one in L.A. That's not very many people to cover the whole gamut of politics and life in America. I think certainly it's an open society. We get briefings from British officials, certainly it's harder to get them from American officials, certainly on the time scale we'd sometimes like them.

MR. KALB: If you had a better time scale, would you be able to rely on U.S. sourcing?

MR. HARNDEN: I think rely would be too strong a word, it would be easier. I think all of us, and certainly speaking for myself, you live in Washington, you develop your own sources, and some of the -- if you follow up with the State Department you'll get the line, and that's the line that you can hear in the briefings every day, and you can read in the papers, and you can just sort of write the line yourself, really. What you want to do is get behind the line, and the way to do that is to get to know people. And so the people that I draw most of my information from are not people who are spokesmen.

MR. HESS: Let me ask --

MR. KALB: I do want to hear the rest of them.

MR. LENTZ: Let me add on, if you're going to have a well functioning network in this city you're lost. I mean, you either rely only and solely on the American press or on private contacts. I think it's a mix of everything. The think tanks play an important role. Daalder, who you just mentioned, is one source which everyone uses from time to time, and others, as well. This is a broad variety, I think. And I think the think tanks play an important role insofar as they are sometimes translating and expressing more clearly the views, because they are more independent. Spokesmen, I absolutely agree, you have to know them personally to be able to read between the lines. And that sometimes gives you also a hint where the direction is.

I, for instance, have a television studio with 12 people working for me, three are Americans, two technicians, and one administration person. They are also sources, because they are plain people, they are coming in the morning and they have seen the news, but maybe they perceived the news in a different way than I did, and we talk about it. If I file a television report or give a comment, they react to it, because I ask for it. So I want them to be part of the decision process, the building of my own opinion. But, after all, I think it's a broad mix of where we get our information from. And I think the deep sources we won't disclose at the moment.

MR. KALB: I'm glad that you have them.

MR. MEVEL: I would like to add three short points, and I hope that Toby won't take it badly. But, the deadline is a poor excuse, nothing prevents you to work your sources in the afternoon for the day after.

MR. KALB: Which I'm sure he does.

MR. MEVEL: Second, if you asked for a proportion, I would say that 80 percent of my production is basically rehashing what the American media is doing.

MR. KALB: 80 percent?

MR. MEVEL: Yes, I put it really flatly. And so maybe in the European media we are allowed to put more of our analysis or judgment, I'm not speaking of propaganda, that's totally different, than the average American reporter, and luckily enough, now.

MR. HARNDEN: Just one small point to that. I think on the practical business of reporting, I found -- the last place I was in was Northern Ireland, which was the biggest domestic news story in the U.K., and a big world story, as well. And I found that regularly if something big happened, I'd have, broadly speaking, three pieces to write. I'd have the splash, the main news story, I'd have an insight color piece on the bomb going off and what happened to people, or to victims, or whatever, and I'd have an analysis piece. What I've found in America regularly is that all those three elements have to be in one piece. There's a different kind of journalism, you're having to mix up those different strands.

MR. KALB: There's a great deal of analysis that goes into just reporting, the accumulation of information and the analysis.

MR. HARNDEN: You've got to sort of translate that information, and guide people much more than you have to on a domestic story.

MR. KALB: So there's a great deal of choice that's involved here. And that's one of the things that is always argued about in journalism, in terms of objectivity.

MR. LENTZ: Not only choice, Marvin, it's also experience, and background. And you can only create background over the years.

MR. HESS: I was going to ask to follow up on Marvin in the general to specific. Presuming this morning, or yesterday or today, you would write, or your papers, or TVs, would have to do a story on the president's steel decision, a story that affects Europe rather possibly dramatically. How would you go about that? Where would you get your briefings, where would you get your information? You don't have to give Rudy your most secret source. But, specifically, as you set out to do that story, how do you put it together from what pieces?

MR. LENTZ: That's an interesting question you're putting forward, because steel is a classical example, in that it is one issue, but involves many others. If we talk about the decision of yesterday we have to see the broader picture of WTO and European- American trade relations, because it's interrelated with bananas, it started with bananas. Now we have steel, we have foreign taxation and the problem, and the WTO ruling. And I think we are building up tension on both sides, because in the end we want to do something. That's the first point. The second point is, this is clearly a domestic issue, because Bush is under tremendous pressure from a certain pressure group, which is very influential. But, compared to the European situation and circumstances we have a few questions amongst ourselves, because we are fighting about quotas within the European Union every year. And especially Germany has a lot of problems in that sector, quotas of steel industry and mills.

And to play this issue for my listeners or my television audience, I'd like to put it in a broader audience and say, hey, for domestic reasons, quite understandable, we have to be -- because it's against fair trade, and against open trade. But, on the other hand I think in the long run this will be part of a package deal. It might be, because they are building up pressure on all sides, and this is the gamble. And in the end there might be a solution where we find that you will have to change your laws concerning the taxation, and the safe haven, and the tax havens of you foreign sales, which is a much larger issue from the European point of view. And if you see into the numbers, you'll find out that there are dozens of billions of dollars involved. And here we have the separate steel issue. But, both are interrelated.

MR. KALB: In terms of the new technology, picking up on steel, but taking it in any other direction, in terms of the story, what is your relationship to your home office? I ask the question, because "in my time" we were really quite detached from New York. In Moscow I didn't have much to do with New York, in fact. But with the new technology it would seem to me that you would be at the other end of an umbilical cord, being fed ideas, editing of your copy, that sort of thing. Help me out on that subject?

MR. HARNDEN: Yes, it's a strange sort of relationship, in fact, on the telegraph we have it separate so that we cannot communicate with the office by email, other than by sending the thing. So we still have to dial into the telegraph system, so it's still slightly antiquated. But in terms of the flow of information, what it means I think is that vast amounts of the information that I've got access to here, they've also got access to. And what we find is that before we've got off, the foreign desk has already read or at least scanned The New York Times and The Washington Post and they've drawn up an initial newslet, and they, rather than asking us -- if we're not careful, rather than asking what we wanted, or what we think should be done, they'll say this should be done, because it's the lead in the New York Times. So we have to sort of grapple with that, and there are a number of ways to do it. You can stay up late and get the first editions, and then file your overnight, so you get it in ahead, or you can just be quick on your feet in the morning.

But the other thing is that we've certainly found since September 11th, is that everybody is an expert on America now, because there are web sites. Even the British domestic papers all have links to U.S. web sites and U.S. articles. Professionally speaking, it was a relief in the immediate aftermath of September 11th that nobody else could get into the country, in terms of journalistic reinforcements, because what you often get is you get monstered by the big guns from the paper. But even so that didn't stop the flow of information. So large amounts of -- just the sheer volume of it -- were being written from London, even though they were quoting Americans and it was all about America.

MR. KALB: Jean-Jacques, you have been in this business long enough to see the difference now between perhaps what it was and what it is. Help us understand it.

MR. MEVEL: I totally agree with Toby on the fact that people in the French department have read the newspaper before my coffee in the morning. OS there are two sides to the problem. One is to consider that since you can get access to the U.S. press earlier in Paris, why don't we shut down the Washington office and have people working at 10:00 in the morning Paris time rather than 10:00 in the morning Washington time. On the other hand, I think it pushes the correspondent to provide what he is really able to do, which is local sources, local experience, local background. I mean, the correspondent is supposed to know what he's talking about, and that's the big difference between writing about the country you live in, and a country you read about every morning on the web site of Washington Post. But, it's true, it's new, and it's provocative, and it pushes us to a change in our trade.

MR. KALB: It pushes you --

MR. HESS: Does it apply more that you're rewriting the Washington Post or the New York Times?

MR. HARNDEN: No, all I was going to say is, I think it's actually less, because I think what it does is it challenges us to add value. And I think in the past when The New York Times may have arrived on the foreign desk sort of a week later, and it would have been put in the bin, because it was out of date, because they read it, we can't reproduce it. So we have to constantly justify why we're here, and give added value, and go and get our own stories, and go to our own places. So I think it's an antidote against lazy foreign journalists.

MR. KALB: But, the antidote? Jean-Jacques?

MR. MEVEL: To follow up on that, it's also a help in the sense that for a factual story they no longer need me. W hat they will ask me is, what does it mean, what are the implications, how did this American people react to this. And I must say, in a way, it's a much more interesting job to do now than it was 15 years ago.

MR. HESS: Does it mean you're writing less, then, if you're writing longer, more interpretive, more analytical things?

MR. MEVEL: It doesn't need to be longer, it's just different. We're more in the news analysis.

MR. KALB: And you used the verb push before, you said added value. Rudy, might you now be pushed into adding an added value to your news production that is not straight reporting, but is much more news analysis. And if you have to do news analysis, do you feel that you're being pushed to come up with something that -- of course this would never apply to you. In other words, that you're driven to say things that you're not all that comfortable with? I know that is true in the American press.

MR. LENTZ: Let's put it that way, I think we are closer to commenting about things and events than ever before. But that must not be false and wrong in itself. As long as you say to yourself that the categories, the frameworks you have yourself, and within your putting a story into its context, are the right ones. But, you are right, in former times it was enough for a television producer or reporter to stay in front of a building in telling a story, because the same images are now around the world, available to other news bureaus all over the world, because there are so many news agencies delivering the images that, like you in your newspapers in Berlin or in Paris could say, we can do this story from here, as well, we have the pictures. Sometimes they have the pictures earlier than we, because we are not on the spot. But the agencies like Reuters or AP, they have more crews than we have out there. So our only advantage is to put it into context, to analyze it, to give added value to it. But that also means that, as a reporter or correspondent, you have to develop your own profile, and they have to accept it. Both are difficult.

The home station, which you call the guys over there who call the shots at the end, because they are controlling the program or the newspaper, they must have the feeling that we have something else, or on top to say, which is of value to the company, to the newscast, or to the program. One differentiation which is difficult for a television guy like I am is the news breaks, the small reports, don't leave you that space many times to give more value, more background, analysis. So if there are not other slots where you can give that value and that deeper information, then I think really you can give up foreign correspondents all over the world, because the pictures are much easier to get and cheaper from news organizations like Reuters or AP or others.

MR. HESS: Rudy, just as the others, and you too of course, can get the New York Times when your editors do, your producers get CNN, that's on in Berlin and Bonn and so forth. How do you react to that, and distinguish yourself from that? You know what they're saying, you know that CNN has such and such, why don't you top it and so forth, how do you -- are you in competition with international television?

MR. LENTZ: We are very much so. But, a television report is a combination of words, images, and a certain drama, which develops itself. So I think it has a lot to do with taste, with images and their perception, and so you can do different reports with the same images. That's what the art is, that's also what the difficulty is. So I have no fear at all, and I'm not concerned about that they all have more or less the same images, because to create something out of those images, still you need creativity, brains, and a good text, and a good combination of all elements.

MR. HESS: You literally have the same images that you buy at CNN and CBS, whatever?

MR. LENTZ: Sure, especially on some occasions where there are only one or two cameras, which happens here and then. I mean, you have something happening and by occasion -- by accident there is a camera nearby. Those pictures are going around the world, and everyone files his report from those pictures.

MR. KALB: The question I'd like to have, in shifting the topic a bit, in the overall war against terrorism that the United States is leading, there has been criticism of the American press for not being critical of the U.S. That has eased off considerably in the last month, as collateral damage stories have appeared. But you're in a very unusual position, you write for what it is that Europeans read and watch, but you also read and see what it is that Americans read and watch. What is your judgment, Jean-Jacques, about the American press's performance in the coverage on the war against terrorism?

MR. MEVEL: Any judgment you put on the coverage by the American press on the war has to take account the fact that it's not exactly like Vietnam or even the Gulf War. I mean, the access to the real war, the front line, is close to zero, but a few pools which are organized by the Pentagon. So I'm somewhat embarrassed to criticize the American press on this specific aspect of it.

I mean, if you look what was written in October, November, December about the war it was mainly through Pentagon briefings, so- called military experts. And you know, since the Gulf War at least, that those people can go wrong madly. But so do French experts, and British experts, and German experts. So, again, I don't want to be polite, that's not my point, but it's really hard to criticize people who have not the opportunity to go see what they're talking about. I mean, I covered the Gulf War, that was not easy, but there were ways to get close to the front line. I've went to Yugoslavia, which was a big mess, dangerous mess, but you could get close to the fighters. This one, how many American journalists have been really close to the action? I don't know. I would say ten.

MR. KALB: That's a good point.

Toby, what's your view?

MR. HARNDEN: I think the American press has done a pretty good job, actually, particularly newspapers. What I find tremendously impression about some of the American, or most of the American print journalism is the details they get, the resources they put on to a story in terms of the number of reporters, and the very, very strenuous efforts they go to getting things right before they print them. And you don't get that in the British press. Sometimes -- it's happened to me this week, some of the things that have been written by some of our competitors about the Schnooks being brought down in Afghanistan were in the realm of fantasy, and not even plausible fantasy. And I find it embarrassing to read that and think, this is why British journalism has got this sort of reputation in some quarters. Whereas, I think if you look at some of some of -- Mike Gordon's sort of analysis and reporting in The New York Times on Afghanistan, I think, has been superb. So I think what the American press sometimes doesn't do is they don't go with their instincts in a way that the British press can do. And sometimes it makes the finished result overly long, and overly wordy, and they don't say anything unless they can absolutely attribute it to something a certain person said.

MR. KALB: But, that's responsible journalism.

MR. HARNDEN: It's responsible, but sometimes I think the connections -- American reporters fail to make the connections, or fail to get the sort of broader context. It's treated too much like an academic exercise. And that's a very small sort of quibble with what I think is a pretty admirable approach to writing stories.

MR. HESS: What about the others, in terms of their own press, just as you touched upon how the British press was covering it? We asked you, Jean-Jacques, how you thought the American press was.

Okay, because of the wonders of technology you also read the French press and the German press, how have they been covering the war on terrorism, and that includes what they get from Afghanistan, where they get it from, Pakistan, their editorials? What do you see, Rudy?

MR. LENTZ: In the beginning this was a major, or the topic, as well as in the American press. But, we now have two absolutely separate pictures across the Atlantic and here. Here it stays the main issue, and by good reasons from the administration it is kept the main issue, for political reasons and domestic reasons. And reasons because of the upcoming election.

In Europe I think it became a third or second priority also for good reasons confronting us, because we are having elections, as well, we have lots of problems to tackle, unemployment and the economy and things like that. So at the very beginning I think there was sort of a clear solidarity not only by the public outcry on both sides of the Atlantic, but by the same feeling being effected by the threat. This has also changed.

And I think there is one of the reasons -- and I come back to what we say in our introductory remarks, why now the perception is different. We are not feeling the threat from Iraq as massive as the American press and the American politicians are trying to make it look like to the American audience. So there is the different perceptions on both sides. I think there we have the rift, and this is going to widen, and to broaden, and not to be connected.

MR. KALB: What about if we go further southeast, southwest from Iraq, and you get into the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which is treated in this country as a very important story. Is it treated the same way by the European press? How do you see it? And do you see that area as being yet another point of divergence between the United States and Western Europe?

MR. MEVEL: I would say that the Middle East, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, is at the top of our coverage, our foreign coverage, for the past three weeks. And for a reason that I could get into, but which are pretty obvious, I mean, our approach or our bias, whatever name you put on it, is different than the American approach and the American bias.

MR. HESS: How does the American --

MR. MEVEL: But it is a very big story.

MR. HESS: And how do the Americans, and the American position, or non-position figure in reporting on the Middle East?

MR. MEVEL: When you're talking to journalists, it's something which doesn't renew itself; it becomes rapidly outdated. For the average European reader it's now understood that President George Bush won't do anything in the coming weeks, or possibly in the coming months. So it's a non-story. I mean, they called me for stories after stories last year, but this year what's going on in Washington, nothing, so that's it, basically, unless something happens.

MR. LENTZ: But to add on, there is a mounting pressure, starting from the politicians in Europe, but maybe also in the media, that the Americans have something to do about it, because --

MR. KALB: We should be doing something?

MR. LENTZ: Yes, because we feel heavily involved, and until last year we felt that the Americans at least tried to bring those two parties together and tried to be offensive in the way of recreating the peace process, or at least the talking process. And now we have lots at stake for ourselves there. First of all, it's closer to us. Secondly, we have been heavily not only giving money but aid to establish something like an identity and a Palestinian administration, things like that. So the Europeans --

MR. KALB: You haven't mentioned oil?

MR. LENTZ: No, for the Palestine question that is not the major question. I think there are deeper roots of connections and obligations on our side. And I think we feel at the moment, we know that both parties -- we are not able to bring both parties together. Europe is either too weak, or our position is not that close, and we are not that powerful to make it work. So we need the Americans and we are waiting for the Americans, and that I think is the situation right now.

MR. HARNDEN: Certainly the Middle East is very high up on the agenda of all British news organizations really. But I should think the U.S. policy towards the Middle East has been fascinating in recent months. I mean, immediately after September 11th, we saw -- I remember William Burns going up to a House International Relations Committee or subcommittee, getting absolutely lambasted for articulating the current policy, the then policy, which was there was a difference between Israeli targeted assassination and the Americans going after bin Laden. And since then, I mean, I went on vacation for a couple of weeks, and I came back and I thought I was coming back to a different Washington, because the Israeli-Palestine issue had suddenly become part of the war on terrorism, and the Israel lobby in the U.S. seemed to have gotten its sort of message through. So I think it's a very -- this has caused tensions certainly with Britain, and with our other European allies, so I think it's one of the most interesting and probably, particularly if America goes after Iraq, one of the most crucial aspects of how it's all going to play out.

MR. HESS: We like to say in the United States, all politics is local. As you point out, we've got two elections, the French have an election even before that. Have these issues and America's position become wrapped up in the election in any way and, therefore, played back to you here in the United States, the French election, and a little later the German election?

MR. MEVEL: So let's talk about terrorism first, I mean, September 11th. The French press, in terms of editorial line, doesn't talk any longer about it, neither of the candidates, because it's not their thinking, or because it's embarrassing, I don't know. Nobody talks of it any longer. You cannot quote just now Chirac recently over the past month talking about what happened on September 11th. On the contrary, the Middle East crisis is everybody's talking line for obvious reasons. I mean, every -- politics is local. We have four million Muslims in France. So you just translate the power of the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. to the power of the Muslims in France, and you've got the explanation you want. It's dynamite for a French candidate, especially when both of them are running 50/50 in polls. Maybe the Arab vote in France is just an illusion, but if it does exist nobody wants to lose it.

MR. KALB: Rudy, your comment, and then I think Steve should begin to get questions from you.

MR. LENTZ: The picture is not quite clear yet, but it boils down to the question, does the solidarity of the German government, especially the quote of Chancellor Schroeder of the unlimited solidarity with the Americans, does it pay off politically or not? And I have a feeling it does not. So that brings me to the question, does a clear foreign policy position pay off in the domestic area of election campaigning to the positive or the negative? And my feeling tells me it could be negative to the outcome of elections for the Social Democrats and the Chancellor because the public opinion has been swaying from solidarity now to a more reluctant position to a position which is much more critical than it has been a couple of months ago. So, as in France, I think nobody goes back to 9-11 and talks about this first position which has been so strong on all our sides.

MR. HESS: Could I ask one question, too, before we end. I wanted to talk about anti-Americanism, and I separate that from all the things we've been talking about which is somebody is against some American policy. But as that plays back and forth from your home office from public opinion and your consumers, and from what you see as long-time political watchers here, talk a little about that, the effect of that if there is it, or is it just a myth that we've created?

MR. HARNDEN: No, I certainly don't think it's a myth. I mean, you know, when I was in high school I remember Ronald Reagan. There was a television program called Spitting Image, and they had an item, The President's Brain is Missing. This became sort of part of the law over there. And amongst, again, elites, the upper reaches of the newspapers, the media, there's a very strong sense in Europe, I mean perhaps in continental Europe a bit more than an Britain, which is, I think, more sort of instincts. Europeans are more sophisticated and more thoughtful and more reasonable, and Americans eat too much, are very fat and just make loads of money, and don't read books and don't have puzzles and don't travel. And I feel that this is sort of under the surface the whole time. And after September 11th, for most people, there was sort of a decent period of mourning, and now it's sort of rising to the surface again. And you saw that with the reaction to the axis of evil speech, just as you saw it with reaction to the evil empire under Reagan.

MR. HESS: So how do you then deal with it, if you deal with it at all, in your reporting?

MR. HARNDEN: Well, you try to counter it, I mean, the whole time really.

I mean, all through the election, Bush was portrayed in most of the British press as a complete idiot who would certainly lose to Al Gore. So throughout all my coverage, I was trying to -- I mean, I hadn't been here that long, so I was initially fairly sensitive. I was saying, hang on a minute, I think there's more to this guy than meets the eye. He may very well win, and you should take him seriously. And looking back, I wish I had done that a bit more strongly at the outset, because you really have to correct this misperception.

MR. LENTZ: We call it the Kohl effect in Germany, because we have under-estimated that candidate beforehand as well, especially by the press. When Kohl was elected chancellor first, and public opinion was for him, the media thought this guy is plain stupid, and it turned out he was not plain stupid. And we give you the benefit of the doubt as well.

To come back to the cliches, I think anti-Americanism has been existing for a long time. The problem is those mind-sets are there and you can call them up. And I think this is the difficulty and this is the problem. I think you can easily play on those images and perceptions, and we might see more of those in the upcoming months. But as you just said, we can only give our input from this side, and try to calm the tensions and to explain a little in a broader framework.

MR. MEVEL: My own view on that is, to talk about France, which is usually a good target when one talks about anti-Americanism, I would say the historical French anti-Americanism is on the go. Maybe I'm one of the last who has gone to universities where teachers were either goalies or communists, and both of them for obvious reasons had some interest in understating the American mission through the centuries. Fortunately, people do travel, young people especially, they come to the U.S. and they see.

So I would say that the French people reacting, for example, to 9-11 in New York City was the reaction of people, many of them, who had been to New York, and knew what was going on. I mean, they had the twin towers in their eyes in their pictures in their photo album. At the same time George Bush, I'm sorry to say, is an excellent excuse for those bursts of anti-Americanism. I mean, in a way, Clinton was empathetic; he was a womanizer; he was nowhere close to many French. This George Bush, I'm sorry, we don't have any affinity with him.

MR. KALB: But, Jean Jacques, even now you don't feel any fresh affinity based --

MR. MEVEL: I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the average feeling of the French people, or the way they perceive George Bush through what I write, maybe they don't understand what I write, but maybe I'm going native now.

MR. HESS: Do you feel you're feeling native? You've been here long enough, two of the three.

MR. HARNDEN: You sometimes get accused of it. It's strange. I haven't been back. I left Britain for my last holiday on September 10th. I haven't been back there since then. If it had been a day later, I would have been stranded at Heathrow and wouldn't have gotten here for about ten days. So I speak to people in Britain the whole time, obviously, every day, and I have to write for the British audience, and I think it's important to go back every so often. I'm going back in a couple weeks time to sort of soak up what the differences are. But you certainly have to avoid the danger of going native. It's very easy to do. You have American friends, you watch American TV, you enjoy America, and all the rest of it. So you have to be careful to take a step back because you are writing for a foreign audience.

MR. HESS: How often do you go back, Rudy, to remind yourself of whence you came?

MR. LENTZ: Four to six times a year, so this is pretty often. But I have an additional threat to face. My daughter is attending an American school. And this is really an impact on the family because she brings back all the cultural influences which she is facing. So I think this is a nice struggling in the family, we try to keep her European or German, and she is forcing us to get even more closely involved in American lifestyle and all the other things. But to make a differentiation between I was already stationed here between '88 and '91, and Washington has changed very much for the better in the time in-between. And it has become, from a European point of view, much more European, more international, more affluent. Even the restaurants have become far better than they have been 10 or 12 year ago. So you find lots of elements which are important for feeling well in a country, but also keeping your own lifestyle and your own traditions and a close link to your heritage.

MR. KALB: Which may have absolutely nothing to do with good journalism when all is said and done.

We're open now for about 22 minutes of questions, so those of you who would like to ask a question, raise your hand, identify yourself, ask a question please, not a speech, and we'll start right up here in the front if we can get a microphone to you.

Q David Edgar, A Work Foundation. I'm a German representative in Washington. My question is this. Back to Iraq. How much of the differences between Europe and the United States is really context, is culture, is differences in thinking about war? The term "war" I think is very important to talk about because if you mention war in Europe, you have a totally different context than you have in the United States. War is negative, there is only little positive experience in Europe about war. Nothing in the last century, and even before. And this is different in the United States. In the United States, you have a war on almost everything. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on teenage sex, and you have a positive connotation. War is more legitimate, I would say, and I would like to have a little discussion about that.

Thank you.

MR. KALB: Okay. I leave that in your hands. I mean, I have a way of answering that, but I won't.

MR. HARNDEN: Well, I think there's a great difference at the moment between the language that's used in America and in Europe, and also I think there was a very severe psychological shock that America experienced, and is still experiencing that people in Europe didn't experience to the same extent. And I think if you look at this, the rise in popularity in a way of Donald Rumsfeld, I think is a very interesting example of this. This guy stands up before the American press, and I noticed that the Major General in charge of Operation Anaconda did the same thing yesterday as well, and talks joyously about the number of enemy troops that are being killed, and Rumsfeld smiles about it and uses the verb "to kill" the whole time. There were none of these terms of old American Clintonian terms, if you like, about collateral damage and euphemisms. I think part of that is because it's a different administration. A big part of it is September 11th.

Also, the use of the word "evil." Now, clearly, Ronald Reagan did it; he used that as well. But that's not a word that is fashionable in Europe, to talk about the fight between good and bad, good and evil, and right and wrong. But it's very sort of deeply embedded in the American psyche, particularly after September 11th, and I find that that's one of the big sort of disconnects at the moment.

MR. KALB: Do you agree with that?

MR. MEVEL: Yes. I think it goes further than just the speeches. When I talk to American friends, I won't make any judgment of it, but when I hear my friends saying to me that America is at war, that's the country where I live, that's something I miss, and I have the feeling that I'm missing something and I don't know what they're talking about. I mean, the U.S. is obviously at war with terrorism, but the country itself, is it really at war? I mean maybe it was at war one day, on September 11th, but now this is another country at war.

MR. KALB: Rudy, if you would like to comment.

MR. LENTZ: I think that that touched a very, very important point insofar as we Europeans after the First World War, but especially after the Second World War, we have been trying ourselves to convince not only ourselves, but also the public and the rest of the world, political goals have to be achieved by diplomatic or political means and not by war, not by force. This is the whole concept of the European Union.

This is what we are now basically, let's say the constitutional and political thinking of our leaders are upon.

And here comes a nation after 9-11 which takes the challenge of a new threat on globally and says, hey, we only can root that out by force, and by tremendous force and overwhelming force, and all the vocabularies which are involved are very, very far away from what we use in our talks, in our political talks amongst ourselves in Europe. And there's a certain form of actual cultural differences.

MR. KALB: You are really puzzling me.

MR. LENTZ: I say that as a German.

MR. KALB: Well, I say it as a human being. How do you reason with Osama bin Laden? I mean, you seem to be, all of you, suggesting that if the president uses the word "evil" to describe Osama bin Laden that there's something naive and Texan cronyish about him.

MR. HARNDEN: I agree with him, actually. I mean, I think, as a Briton, and particularly sort of since September 11th, the way I find myself, I feel like I'm more like an American than a European. I mean, British people don't really say they're European. They talk about themselves as being British, and we've got the whole sort of legacy of a shared language and culture and U.S.-American relations. So I don't have a problem with it at all. I find myself more and more having a problem with people in Europe, at least what you get here is people saying what they mean, which is what I find refreshing. And I think a lot of ordinary people in Britain do as well.

MR. LENTZ: Now we are forced ourselves to absolutely agree with this position, but what I tried to tell you is the story that Europeans and also the public thinks differently about that. And that concerns me, and not only me, I think some of my friends here in the room, we started this discussion --

MR. MEVEL: That's the big difference between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I mean, as long as the problem is to deal with bands of terrorist gangs, networks, there's no discussion, not with the Europeans, not with the U.S. No problem, just watch what happened on September 11th. But when you're dealing with states, I mean, there's something called diplomacy, and war is the last resort of diplomacy.

But you have to try diplomacy first. And I mean, I'm not in the futurology business, but I would raise the hypothesis that if there is a Security Council vote in June followed by an ultimatum, I mean there will be some European weight behind this ultimatum far beyond Britain, I mean possibly the French, and to Germans. But, first, please let's try diplomacy. That's the way the world works now.

MR. KALB: Okay. Question.

Q I'm Jeff Wynn with the Washington File. And you were talking earlier about the differences between the press coverage in the war on terrorism from the European and American perspective. I was wondering if you would talk about that in a broader context, overall, what do you think are some of the differences between European press and American press, and is there anything that you think and can identify that the American press does poorly and that you may think you do a better job at, or vice versa, just some of the differences between the two press organizations.

MR. KALB: You sort of touched on this, but if you want to give it another round, we can do it or move on.

MR. HARNDEN: I've pretty much said what I think.

MR. HESS: In fairness, certainly, you talked a great deal about really particularly about analysis. Wouldn't you say that the typical broad sheet serious paper out of your three countries is much more what we have to slug political analysis, otherwise, it can't be on the front page of the New York Times?

MR. LENTZ: To make a point, and also to try to answer this question, for me, there's a clear difference between the print media and the electronic media in this country. On the East Coast especially, I have no problems with the newspapers at all, I mean, they're excellent papers, they have a lot of background, they're very substantial, and we are all readers of most of them. But in the electronic media, especially in television, I really have a problem. I mean, their world view is shrinking by the year, and the recent discussion about "Nightline" is only the tip of the iceberg. And what already has been done in that area is, from a European point of view, devastating, because you're losing the -- this is the media you are reaching out to the public, you're reaching out to the average American. And what they know and get to know about the world is, compared to what Europe gets to know about the world by television, much less. This is what I'm concerned about.

MR. HESS: Is that related to the fact that your television is much more likely to be government subsidized, or government --

MR. LENTZ: Public broadcasts.

MR. HESS: Okay. So that would be a distinction that you're making, and that at least sets the stage for the commercial part?

MR. LENTZ: Stephen, this is an ongoing discussion amongst your media people as well and amongst the victims of this development as well, especially, and we all know how it's all worked out in this country. If you're going after the buck, you're finding the lowest common denominator for news, and which is entertainment and feeding the taste and the perceptions and the demands of the public. There we have a problem. We still have in Europe a certain approach that education, information and bringing people to a higher level in the free flow of information, give them as much as possible, and a broad variety of the different viewpoints, there is still a common shared goal, more or less.

MR. HARNDEN: Just one major difference, and it really is a major difference, in Britain you have a broad spectrum of papers, you know where each paper is coming from, certainly editorially and to some extent in its news coverage as well. In America, I find that you have, in terms of the print media anyway, you almost have this hallowed notion of objectivity, which I think is unobtainable, and there's a slight element of a con about it because the framework is often conventional wisdom slightly leaning towards the left, and that is seen as what's objective, and that's not the case. So that's sort of a very big difference I find.

MR. KALB: Yes, please.

Q My name is Mary Mullin and I work with the Bosnia Support Committee.

I wanted to pick up on what you said about force, and not using force. I wanted to refer to the International Criminal Court that Americans don't seem to be interested in, but the Europeans are very interested. And this, I guess, will be formed fairly soon. Will you use that court for terrorists if you arrest a terrorist, would you use that? If, say, Saddam Hussein were indicted as a war criminal, would you use that court? Would you use that type of force?

MR. LENTZ: I've been living the last couple of years before I came to the United States in Brussels, and I was very much involved in the establishment of the International Tribunal and then Hague following the unfolding process of Bosnia and the aftermath. Five years ago, I would have bluntly said no. Today, I would say yes, because it has shown its impact and its abilities to keep up with war crimes and to do something about it. So five years ago, no one would have been expected and would have had high hopes for this court. So I think it has proven a reliable instrument as long as we all put our input in it and keep it as is, or make it even stronger. And so far, yes.

MR. KALB: Okay. Another question, and then we could fold it.

MR. HESS: All right. In the absence of any more thoughts from our audience, which surprises me, what's wrong with you people. We've got five minutes of valuable time of these three --

Q Force us, we'll follow. I'm Klaus Gramco, I'm president of the Amsadic (sp) Institute. I have a question to all of you.

We mainly talked about the transatlantic and the international aspects of your reporting. I would be interested how much can you report about American issues, let's say domestic, with no direct impact on the transatlantic relation.

Is there an interest in Europe, and with your editors or not, and how do you, for example, go with a story like Enron?

MR. HARNDEN: Certainly, one of the things you do as a correspondent, I think, is you push very, very hard to cover stories about ordinary Americans, stories that touch on American life and say something about American life, rather than always approaching things through British or European prisms. And, I mean, I find it in a way a bit slightly tedious when you have to write a story about, say, steel, or Enron, leading off with the fact that, you know, the particular way it's going to affect Britain, or the fact that Britain has one member who is on the Enron audit committee. Because I find that it skews a story in a way that I don't always sort of particularly enjoy. But the fact is that when you're dealing with editors, you have to try to sell it on how it's going to connect to the readers. So sometimes you just need that little excuse to write about, I don't know, say, faith- based initiatives here, the excuse being that Tony Blair is looking at doing this sort of thing in Britain as well, and that will sort of enable you to get into it.

But I think it's very important for us, and it's also very important for us not to look at American issues and just sort of write stories about weird America, or strange America, or aren't Americans sort of odd, and to sort of cover America sort of on its own terms in a sense.

MR. MEVEL: I would say that, obviously, since September 11th, the room which is left for non-political and non-diplomatic, non-war like stories is quite narrow for one obvious reasons. I mean, I am for Figaro about the only one which is able to travel and report instead of -- we've got business correspondents; we've got the New York correspondent, but everything else I'm supposed to cover. But there is a real interest on features, on people stories, and it's slowly coming back.

For example, the whole thing about the Catholic Church in the Northeast, and pedophilic priests, it's obviously of interest back in France. Same, as well, for the trial of Andrea Yates in Texas. And I feel that for the past two months, they're beginning to ask for this kind of story. I mean, let's change our mind about America, and let's talk about real people, and go make your legwork with your notebook again, please.

MR. HESS: That raises an interesting question because, of course, it's a very big country, and you all have relatively small bureaus. It strikes me that if you're not here in a presidential year where at least you're forced to go to Iowa and New Hampshire and some other places, how much opportunity do you actually have within your budgets to see something that's off the coast?

MR. MEVEL: It depends on the intensity of the news. And, unfortunately, for the past three years, between America, the Florida election, and September 11th, I've been quite busy. And, actually it didn't leave us much time to go abroad. But the last year, I was able to travel, I would say I would go ten times a year out of Washington reporting, physically doing my job.

MR. LENTZ: Less than we would, but it's still enough. I mean, this country is a large country compared to where we all come from. But it's so different. Every one of us, and I think this is a common belief amongst all foreign correspondents, loves to go out and see and feel and smell the country, and not stuck here on the East Coast, especially in Washington. There's lots of things to offer, and we're going to experience and try to explore it.

MR. HARNDEN: It's possible to do. I mean, I'm actually taking part in a competition with a colleague on the BBC as to how many states we can report from. And in two years I've actually written stories from 35 different states. And you do sort of find excuses, I mean, even after September 11th, I thought it was very, very important to get out of Washington because it's a business city where the business is government in many respects, and 87 percent of the population of D.C. voted for Al Gore. It's very different from the rest of the country. It's very important to get out.

And you can find excuses to do it. I mean, leisurely after September 11th, I went to South Dakota and Nebraska to write about the economy, and how people felt in middle America. And those are the pieces that often get into the paper, rather than a sort of academic piece about the economy from Washington.

MR. LENTZ: Let me just pick up to what Klaus Gramco said about Enron, because nobody picked it up here on the panel, maybe for good reason. This is still unsettled also from what point of view we're going to take, because I think the open question is, is this only feeding our prejudice about corporate America and the greed, or is that only a single case? So I think that's what we still don't know, but certainly this is a big issue and we have to follow-on on that. And this is an interesting story in itself, and the unfolding and background, and the news which are coming out by the hour or the day would certainly get our interest.

MR. MEVEL: Let me follow up on this. I mean, George Bush is the kind of president the French people love to hate. I mean, we can say the same thing about Enron. I mean that is the kind of cast of a company that the French people, corporate American --

MR. HESS: With that, we'll thank our panel, it's been a fascinating, fascinating hour and a half. We're grateful to you. We're grateful to the Foreign Press Center for allowing us to do this. We're going to do it again, I'm sure, if they'll invite us back. Jeff Brown shakes his head yes. We take that as an affirmative.

Let me just tell you about our next program, those of you who have been so good to follow us, this is the 13th. The 14th, we'll be back at Brookings on March 27th. Again, it will be 9:30 to 11 at the Falk Auditorium at Brookings. You are all invited. The subject is going to be one that we also are returning to. At the end of November, we asked Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center to do some polling and to tell us about American public opinion at that time. Okay, four months later, what has happened to American public opinion in this complicated war against terrorism. Andrew Kohut will be back with new data and a panel to analyze that data, and you're all invited to be with us as well.

Thank you all for being here today.

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.