A Frank Interview with Christiane Amanpour

Frank: What values do you see inherent in public service that are also applicable to journalism?

Amanpour: Public service means different things to different people, depending on your profession. To me, journalism is de facto a public service: particularly, the fact-based reporting that involves traveling to the scene and being the eyes and ears for your audience, who otherwise couldn't be there. So, I believe there's a vital public service in being an objective reporter - one who's committed to tearing back the veils of secrecy and darkness on some of the most important corners and places in our world.

Frank: It is often said that your form of fact-based, no-filter reporting is a lost art in the media. How do we instill a mandate for public service across the journalism profession as a whole?

Amanpour: Well, unfortunately it's very difficult in today's environment. The mega-corporations own the media and for the most part are driven by profits. You see, there are competing values: to make as much money as possible through ratings or give people the truth that isn't "sexed up." I prefer the latter. But, I believe good journalism actually makes good business, and good business doesn't necessarily make good journalism.

I also think that the United States lacks a major public broadcasting/public service entity. While PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) produces great journalism, it's constantly having to battle for funding. We in England have the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which is government-funded and everyone who has a television pays a license fee. So it provides plentiful resources with a mandate to produce good journalism. I think there should be a commitment to wholly fund a really great public-service broadcaster, herein the USA.

Lastly, one of the things in the United States that chips away at free and fair public-service journalism on television is the absence of the "fairness doctrine." When you have a completely deregulated environment, you're not necessarily going to get the best, or most objective journalism.

Frank: Public servants often describe themselves as doers: people anxious to submerge themselves in a problem in order to find a solution. Should journalists be seen more as actors or recorders in relation to the policy-making process?

Amanpour: Our environment today has become one in which anybody on television perceives themselves as an actor. I think, as journalists, we are inevitably part of civil society and, therefore, we are players. However, problems arise when you become too much of a player and start politicizing information or reporting through ideological prisms, completely distorting reality. You can take the lead up to the Iraq war as a perfect example.

I personally believe that you can have really dramatic, dynamic and powerful pieces of journalism that are nonetheless fact-based. The world is the ultimate reality show. You don't need to sensationalize it.

Frank: How has professional journalism changed with the onset of citizen journalism, which empowers everyday citizens to leave their own journalistic imprint?

Amanpour: Some aspects of citizen journalism are great, and some are dangerous. Citizen journalists can be an extra bonus; they can provide pictures, video and information instantly from anywhere in the world. But professional journalists, who have gone through the rigors of being vetted and gaining trust, experience and credibility, must not be replaced. You can't underestimate the importance of preserving traditional journalism, while at the same time, making use and taking advantage of all these fantastic technological advances.

Frank: As a constant observer of global events, how has the election of Barack Obama affected the global perception of America?

Amanpour: Well, after the election, you just had to look at the streets, villages and towns around the world and see the massive groundswell of support and celebration that swept the globe. Obama has reinvigorated Brand America. Yes, he's got massive challenges ahead, and people with high expectations of him will inevitably be a little disappointed. But, when was the last time people from Asia to the Middle East to Europe to Africa to Latin America were dancing in the streets and celebrating America, instead of rioting, protesting, demonstrating and burning American flags? His victory will make it much more difficult for certain countries or people to consider America the enemy.

Frank: One of the arguments against Obama in the election centered on his willingness to speak to leaders of foreign countries who disagreed with American policies. Given your experience and reputation as someone willing to speak with some of the world's most vilified leaders, what's the value of talking with our enemies?

Amanpour: Whenever possible, I think it's massively important to engage in dialogue without impossible preconditions. Obama may have walked back the idea of sitting down president-to-president as a first step. But his idea of engaging these very challenging countries is the correct one - we've seen the poor results of "the silent treatment" during the past eight years. History has shown that isolation rarely works.

In October 2008 on CNN, I interviewed five former secretaries of state who crossed party lines: Colin Powell, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright. Each of them stated that the next U.S. president must engage with countries like Iran and Syria without preconditions. After 30 years of trying to isolate Iran, this new administration needs to engage and reestablish a relationship that's based on mutual interests.

Frank: How did the media fail this country during this past presidential election, if at all?

Amanpour: If there was one thing wrong, which I hope changes now, it was the reliance on panels of talking heads. These were the same panels that we saw during the entire election season, and who essentially didn't leave the studio. Old-fashioned reporting must be the backbone of how people get their information, which can be supplemented with panels. Many analysts do have valuable things to say from their years of experience and perspective. But, I don't think you can substitute commentary for reporting.

Frank: You gained a lot of recognition for your embedded reporting during the Bosnian conflict. Describe the evolution of journalism since then.

Amanpour: The kind of relentless reporting I did in Bosnia - day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, until it was over - simply doesn't exist today. The Clinton administration and its Western allies eventually decided they could no longer tolerate such a slaughter. I strongly believe that what I - along with other reporters on the ground - did in Bosnia positively impacted the way the Clinton administration marshaled the necessary support for Kosovo several years later before that province turned into a bloody, genocidal mess. I think we contributed to peace, to saving lives, and to stability.

Americans need to be more educated on the issue of foreign policy so they can help convince their leaders to pursue the right actions; even though it might be unpopular, such as intervening in the Balkans. When President Clinton and the rest of the world regrettably stood by during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, leaving approximately one million people to be slaughtered in 100 days, the press wasn't there en masse to show the results from our leaders' failure to act. What I'm saying is vitally important. It's not just my wish list; it's a matter of life and death.

But it costs money and human capital to travel and truly tell those stories. We've seen dwindling resources for investigative journalism, and this is an unacceptable trend to me. In the business of journalism, the market and competition don't always produce the best product. In fact, I think the market has actually made journalism worse.

Frank: With the Bush administration accused of being too unilateral in its foreign policy, what approach should the Obama administration take?

Amanpour: "Unilateral" is exactly what the Bush administration did for most of their term, which was a big problem. European countries are still looking to America for leadership around the world. Obama has already signaled that he is going the multilateral route, which is absolutely necessary at this juncture.

Of course, there are still the two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that need to be dealt with. It's critical that Afghanistan be rescued from the jaws of defeat. I was there when the Taliban was routed and Al Qaeda was sent packing, but the U.S. took its eye off the ball when it charged into Iraq. At the same time, Iraq will continue to be a huge challenge, with the United States needing to balance ending the war without leaving a vacuum to be filled by the wrong forces. Russia also needs to be engaged, so that relationship does not slip back into a Cold War mentality. A lot has to be done to reach a new phase of cooperation and constructive engagement between the United States and Russia.

Frank: What's next for you?

Amanpour: All I've really tried to do in my career is bring as much foreign news to America and our global audience as possible. While so very few are doing it, I remain committed to reporting on global issues despite the tough challenges ahead.

I'm also optimistic because I sense a deep thirst for information from this new generation of young people. We've seen their desire for news during this past election, but they're also looking for views from somewhere other than the United States - for different perspectives, for different analyses. I just hope we in the news media know how to capitalize on it.