BAGHDAD BOUND NEWS ORGANIZATIONS GET READY FOR CONFLICT IN IRAQ.

Byline: David Kronke Television Writer

When journalists arrive at Baghdad's Hotel al-Rashid, where Western media correspondents stay while covering Iraq, they're greeted in the lobby by a tile mosaic of George H.W. Bush, the current president's father who first engaged Saddam Hussein in Operation: Desert Storm. Rendered in folk-art style, the mosaic would seem almost quaint except for its angry legend: ``BUSH IS CRIMINAL.''

It may be the first indication that covering the impending potential war with Iraq will be unlike Gulf War I (after which the mosaic was created) or indeed any war before it. Add to this the fact that any war will be covered by Al-Jazeera, the Arab world's news network, which is likely to present a different picture than any of the Western outlets.

``We still don't know a lot about what happened in Afghanistan, except it was a dirty, dangerous war,'' says Paul Slavin, executive producer of ``World News Tonight'' for ABC. ``Iraq will be much worse.''

``This will be about changing the Iraqi government. Last time, that was not the goal,'' notes Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN. ``That places journalists in Baghdad in grave danger.''

``Last time, Iraqis trusted us as a voice to the West,'' declares Robert Wiener, a former CNN producer who directed the network's coverage as bombs fell (his story is told on HBO this month in ``Live From Baghdad''). ``This time around, Iraqis know the endgame; they won't be exercising manpower to extend courtesies to reporters. They'll be concerned with their own survival.''

Dangerous duty

``It will be trickier because of the possibility of biological and chemical warfare,'' adds ``NBC Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw, who plans to report from the region.

Peter Arnett, who reported from Baghdad for CNN during the Gulf War and now serves as CameraPlanet's chief correspondent (its latest documentary, ``Back to Baghdad,'' aired Sunday on MSNBC), downplays the danger - a little.

``Iraq is experienced with bombings, which will be phase one of the war,'' says Arnett, reached by phone in Baghdad. ``The government will let the press move with little hostility to tell stories of mistaken bombings or collateral damage; they'll want that emphasized.

``But if the second phase of the war begins - the land war - all bets are off. If things get out of control, if Baghdad is laid siege and there's massive unrest, the press must be careful. There's no telling who will be on one side or another, or if you'll be protected by minders (Iraqis charged to follow journalists). That's one of the great unknowns.''

``This is a story about governments, not people,'' observes Lester Holt, who hosts MSNBC's ``Countdown: Iraq.'' ``People I met in Iraq were curious and welcoming but clearly didn't like our government. In the way we refer to Saddam, they feel that way about President Bush.''

Making a decision

Before Iraq's release Sunday of 12,000 pages denying that it has weapons of mass destruction, all of the major news divisions had placed personnel in the Middle East, with more to be dispatched. They'd scoped out maps of the region and picked areas to land reporting teams: Kuwait and Qatar's NATO base, both south of Iraq, were mentioned most often, along with Turkey, Jordan and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia is a less likely outlet: As Brokaw notes, ``When (America) was there during the Gulf War, that was used as an excuse to start jihad against the United States.''

``We're going to cover Iraq the same way we covered Afghanistan - we will ring Iraq,'' says David Verdi, executive director of news for NBC and MSNBC.

All networks hope to be present in Baghdad if and when hostilities commence. That's tricky - visas are issued at the caprice of the Iraqi government; reporters are frequently expelled.

``CNN does no diplomatic dancing,'' says Jordan. ``We've been thrown out several times in the past 12 years, interrupting coverage for months. We want to be there, but not at the expense of rock-solid journalism.''

Arnett noted a way to circumnavigate censors: ``During the Gulf War, reporters ran their scripts by their minder, but Iraqis allowed reporters to answer (live) questions from anchors. So a two-minute story could turn into an uncensored 30 minutes.''

Basic training

Reporters dispatched to the region undergo between two days and two weeks of training in dealing with wartime conditions. Those offering training include an outfit called Pilgrim in Pennsylvania, one run by former Royal Marines in Virginia and England, and one operated by the Pentagon, which also instructs reporters and military officials on how to deal with one another. Given that nine reporters have been killed covering the Afghanistan war, such instruction is crucial.

``A major obstacle is ensuring our people are trained properly,'' says NBC's Verdi. ``We're trained for chemical and biological warfare, battlefield safety courses. The trap is letting your guard down.''

Holt lists other curricula: ``Recognizing land mines and booby-trapped cars - and avoiding kidnapping.''

Some are skeptical of networks' abilities to gather accurate information. As Wiener says, ``The Pentagon has learned how to manipulate the press.''

``The Pentagon is trying to ensure that Vietnam not happen again,'' says Marcy McGinnis, senior vice president of CBS News. ``Then, coverage was not sugarcoated; viewers turned against that war. They don't want that to happen and try to control what is reported. Our job is to get the story out, whether people want to hear it or not.'''

Last week, the Pentagon announced it will allow reporters to travel with troops into combat.

Lt. Col. Dave Lapan of the Pentagon press office, says, ``We the military and the media have tried to work through a lot of issues. Ultimately, we'll never see eye to eye: Our jobs are not always compatible. It's important to recognize those differences.

``In Afghanistan, we made our share of mistakes and tried to correct them,'' Lapan continues. ``Early on, (the war was fought by) Special Operations - attention on them compromises their work and puts lives at risk.''

Lapan recalls an incident from the 1991 Gulf War. ``A reporter preparing (for a report) saw an object and said, 'Hey this thing is cool,' and did his remote before it. It was an identifiable landmark, so the enemy knew (our location).' ''

Such incidents, Lapan concedes, ``don't help the relationship. By the same token, there are lots of knuckleheads in the military, too. We try to teach our knuckleheads not to be knuckleheads.''

The Al-Jazeera factor

Some believe part of the reason for the Pentagon's new openness is linked to Al-Jazeera. ABC's Slavin calls Al-Jazeera ``an intangible - a news organ with access we can't get. It'll be an interesting component of everyone's reporting.'' Both he and Arnett use the same words: ``Al-Jazeera will play the role CNN did in 1991.''

Not only will American networks be able to use images collected by Al- Jazeera, but they could also share Arab perspective on the combat - which, news executives know, is scarcely unbiased. But critics of American TV news, even journalists themselves, note that domestic news coverage hasn't been partisan of late, either.

``CNN tried to convince the Iraqis we were fair, balanced,'' Wiener says. ``Sept. 11 changed the world, but journalists shouldn't be patriot police. When (CNN's) Lou Dobbs wears an American lapel pin, it plays to domestic audiences, but it can send a perception that (CNN is) not international, and that can put people at risk.''

Some critics charge that TV news organizations are failing to present cogent debate on the impending conflict. Given that even White House Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni is cautious about acting against Iraq, some believe TV's emphasizing the war's forgone conclusion, turning instead to cheerleading, is troubling.

Charles Kupchan, former National Security Council member and author of ``The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century,'' says, ``The scenario is worrisome - democracy is not being served.

``One of the things always we've been reassured about this country is that it's a marketplace of ideas,'' Kupchan continues. ``Op-ed pages (and) the evening news debate issues widely. But we are not having this debate. In Congress, debate was quite truncated. If we go to war, that's fine, but we should have all sides of the debate exposed. That's not happening; that's not going to happen.''

Lack of debate

``Right now, with the administration in power, what they say is fine with many Americans,'' notes CBS' McGinnis. ``There's a sense that questioning the government is unpatriotic.''

``It's especially worrisome when a country as powerful as the U.S. starts stomping around on the global stage,'' Kupchan adds. ``What earned this country respect among other nations is restraint in being a global power. If we lose that image, we'll be much worse off. There's a bunker mentality in this country. I'm not against the war, but we should have an American-style debate before we move.''

CAPTION(S):

5 photos

Photo:

(1 -- cover -- color) ON THE COVER: Radio reporter Ross Simpson, right, interviews photographer Spencer Platt as members of the media undergo war training sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense in Quantico, Va., in November.

Barry Schlacter/Fort Worth Star-Telegram

(2) TV camera operators stand on a bus outside a factory in Baghdad as they try to get a view of U.N. weapons inspectors visiting a factory that once made parts for Scud missiles.

Jerome Delay/Associated Press

(3) In an image from Iraqi TV last week, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein speaks to members of the ruling Baath Party.

(4 -- 5) ``NBC Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw, top, is already in Baghdad. Former CNN anchor Peter Arnett, shown above during a recent assignment in Pakistan, is already in the Iraqi capital, this time reporting for CameraPlanet.