FORUMS »»
GALLERY »»
RESOURCES »»
HOME »»
I just got done reading a post from Media Matters detailing the print media's subconscious endorsement of the October 2002 Iraq resolution:
Summary: A December 4 Washington Post article pointed out that the newspaper's own reporting from October 2002 on the House's passage of the Iraq war resolution failed to quote a single Democrat expressing concerns about "postwar challenges," though many had done so. Media Matters found that contemporaneous articles from three other major print outlets also left out any mention of such warnings.
Read the whole thing. It's not really that surprising, I suppose, since I don't remember a lot of dissenting opines coming from any news medium at the time. In fact, I remember most coverage to be rather pro-war right up to about the time when it became clear that WMD's were nowhere to be found. It got me thinking...
This story comes at a time when quite a few conservative bloggers are making news by whistle-blowing on organizations like the AP for either 'liberal bias", or (worse), shilling "enemy propaganda". Lost somewhere in the outrage and hype is the simple fact that the news in question is coming from a war zone, where any western journalist's life is in jeopardy the instant he or she leaves the company of American forces. Slanted, incomplete, biased or downright false reports would be widespread, I would assume, but these guys seem to want to give the press a hard time. According to Reporters Without Borders, 138 journalists and media assistants have been killed in Iraq since the '03 invasion. Maybe it should be expected that the war's most indignant supporters would cave into the weight of all the bad news, and start lashing out at the messenger. It's been going on for a little while now. I've looked through some archives, and I didn't detect a whole lot of criticism of the MSM's war reporting coming from the righty blogs in the early days of the war.
On the other hand, could they have uncovered some actual bias, and caught the media red-handed intentionally presenting flawed reports? Does the MSM really want to influence support for the war? If so, why would they do that? Doesn't war 'sell'? If these bloggers are right, then hat's off to guys like Curt for his role as a MSM watchdog. After all, a large media organization's habit of intentionally using questionable sources should be scrutinized no matter whose agenda the story advances.
If it is indeed true that the MSM wanted us in Iraq 'then', but wants us out 'now', then there is at least one knee-jerk theory:
They feel guilty.
In light of everything that's happened, it's not out of the question to speculate that in the highest offices of the media's headquarters there are those who feel partially responsible for all the pro-war spin they've delivered from the outset. Perhaps they feel they were tools of the Bush pre-war dog and pony show, and cannot bear the feeling of responsibility for this ill-advised war that continues to sacrifice American lives and treasure. On at least a subconscious level, they are attempting to correct the disaster that their unquestioning stenographers wrought in late '02/early '03. They didn't do their job, and they know it.
Conversely, the decision to print stories like this could all just be for ratings. The war was 'hot' then, and 'not so hot' now. In the case of this Iraqi police captain, the AP as eager to get sensational stories that make the war look bad because it sells newspapers. In this case, the bloggers caught the AP being greedy and reckless in their reporting, as opposed to sponsoring any kind of political agenda. Not exactly deserving of a pat on the back, though.
Finally, the theory that seems the most logical is 'all of the above'. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as they say. I found a good documentary that spends quite a bit of time covering how news is reported from Iraq, and why the western media uses 'stringers' to get the bulk of the reports from outside the green zone (Hat Tip: Ranma773):