Has the public been kept well-informed by war coverage in the mainstream media?
Prof. Maida Odom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Virginia Tech/In Memoriam
"We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness ... We will prevail ..." -- Nikki Giovanni, University Distinguished Professor, poet, activist
8 comments:
I think the media’s coverage of the Iraq conflict has opened up considerably since 2003, but it certainly would have been helpful if they’d simply been more balanced from the outset. For instance, when Dick Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 on Meet the Press prior to the invasion, there should have been a response of equal weight pointing out that the actual facts of situation did not reflect that.
The same is true of almost every claim made by the administration regarding Iraq leading up to the invasion.
I think the responsibility for that lies heavily with the opposition party, which was very timid about this issue at the time, out of (a largely justified) fear of seeming “unpatriotic” or “weak” on defense issues(which is ironic, considering that the majority of the world views the invasion of Iraq as an act of aggression, not self defense). Examples of public figures becoming ostracized as a result of criticizing the White House’s policy on Iraq are numerous. Michael Moore’s incident at the Oscars in 2003 and the banning of the Dixie Chicks by many radio stations come readily to mind.
But the responsibility to counter the administration’s arguments did not lie entirely with the Democratic Party. This is where the press comes in. There were plenty of intelligence experts, academics, foreign leaders, NGO’s and some progressive Democrats and others who mainstream media outlets could have interviewed. Instead, outlandish claims about Iraq being an imminent threat to the United States and being connected to terrorism were aired largely unchallenged to an already terrified population.
If the goal of the press is to ensure popular support for the policies of the United States government, they did a great job. If the goal of the press is something other than that, then I’m not so sure.
The traumatic events of 9/11 knocked the United States as a whole back on its heels and left the country in a vulnerable position. Terrorists succeeded to put fear into the collective heart of the American people. President Bush called for immediate retaliation and the majority of the country, at least on the front, supported it.
The national media gave wall-to-wall coverage of the war that started in Afghanistan and quickly spread to Iraq. News outlets and government officials alike were quick to praise the ongoing efforts of our troops, yet refrained from debating or questioning the real/future issues of the war.
How long is this war going to take? What are we hoping to accomplish when it is all over? How many lives are going to be sacrificed in order to justify a means tat we still do not even understand?
The United States was booming with patriotism and a sense of American pride. For every flag that swayed on people’s front lawns, another member of the media or government cringed at the idea of upsetting the utopian Americanism feeling. No one in particular wanted to be the opponent to the notion.
Now almost four years later take a look at how the emotional scale of the country has drastically changed. President Bush is generally torn apart by the both the media and the national perception. The War in Iraq is not only considered a failure, it is an ongoing failure that has no light at the end of the tunnel.
The public was denied the opportunity to see all facets or potential scenarios the war could take on right from the get go. Instead, the public was spoon-fed that this “was the right path.” Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” served as an eminent threat to our way of life.
The public had no choice but to form opinions with the information they were given. General news reports were going on and on with how the war was necessary. Bush supporters gloated that the war would make America a safer country. Yet former war generals who were opposed to the idea of the war were pushed to the back of the fold.
No anti-American war effort propaganda here no matter how much sense you seem to be making!
The war in Iraq has the country up in arms. No one can believe that this is happening when the experts of the matter were pleading with the public to understand four years ago. When national propaganda pulls the wool over our eyes, it makes it difficult to see the truth. The wool has been taken off, it just might be too late. Watch the daily news and see how quickly the tide turns. No one can wait to take a shot at the war or the President.
Judith Miller's legal ordeal is one of many reminders that freedoms carry with them great responsibilities, especially in the competitive and lightning-paced world of journalism. Much has been made of the notion that Miller's case casts light on "the fragility of reporters' general working assumption that they can protect the identities of confidential sources," even as recently as a Washington Post story covering her January 2007 testimony in Scooter Libby's perjury trial. Perhaps the more unique aspect of this scenario is the doubt it casts on the accountability of journalists.
Miller's reportage was used not only as an alleged means to reveal the identity of Valerie Plame, but also as one basis for an international conflict. In September of 2002, Miller and reporter Michael R. Gordon reported in the New York Times that metal tubes bound for Iraq were being exported for the purpose of uranium enrichment. This report was offered almost unequivocally; it vaguely stated that some intelligence was "spotty" but went on to aver quite clearly that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb." The story also reported that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." This information was attributed to "American officials" and "American intelligence experts," despite the existence of accounts to the contrary from U.N. weapons inspectors and prominent physicists that had long since been available.
Nevertheless, Miller and Gordon's report was mentioned specifically by Colin Powell and others making the public case for war. Miller would later appear on the Jim Lehrer News Hour after being embedded in Iraq to tell a national audience, "What (the military) found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist ... who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand." Yet her sources were second hand and again unnamed.
These are just two instances out of literally dozens wherein Miller misrepresented facts in articles and appearances that received national attention over the course of Iraq War. While state and federal shield laws are a matter worth debating, it seems far more alarming that such reckless use of anonymous sources and politicized information (such as that from Libby and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi) was not only cited by Miller but published by the Times and embraced by military officials. The irresponsibility of one becomes the folly of the many and a deadly fiasco for thousands caught in the middle.
In both the defense industry and the press, professionals pride themselves on accuracy and diligence. However, the military exists in order to achieve specific objectives, while the press has a much broader commitment to the citizens of the world. That duty entails verifying information, something that Miller and her superiors seem to have neglected. Over a decade removed from the first Iraq War, it would seem that the press gleaned very little from its alacritous misfires about babies being tipped out of incubators and other human rights abuses in Kuwait. Instead, Miller and the Times ran with equally specific misinformation at the outset of yet another war.
During the Gilded Age, a rallying crime among journalists was that "there is no one left to uphold the law, none but all of us." If Miller is representative of the contemporary fourth estate, the rule of law may be knee deep in the Bubbly Creek.
I feel that the media has not been effective in informing
people about Iraq, because the news hasn’t gone in-depth
about the issues. After 9/11, it seems major media have
done more to scare and rally people, reporting on terror-
alert levels and showing footage of terrorist bombings.
With the emergence of 24 hour news networks and infinite
online outlets, there is great opportunity to really educate
people on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and how the war
process works. People could also be better informed on what
steps congress members are taking do deal with these
issues. Instead, we have several news stations that repeat
the same 30-second clips, and then offer “roundtable
discussions” which are merely partisan arguments. When a
politician is on a news show, he or she is often interrupted
or else given easy questions.
It is obvious that few people truly understand issues about
Iraq. Many people don’t understand Iraq’s government, the
relations Iraq has with neighboring countries, and who the
American and Iraqi government officials are. After 9/11,
people simply knew they were afraid of terrorists. After
Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech, people knew that Iraq was a
bad place. After Bush made his speech on the aircraft
carrier, people were under the impression that the war was
about done, and we were safer. Now people see the death
toll, and realize that the war is going wrong. It has been
going poorly for months, but there was little attention
given to that fact until the democrats recently gained
control of congress.
I come from somewhat of a different perspective from most folks. I covered Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In fact, the first story I covered in the Middle East was in July 1979 when the late president invited his cabinet for a meeting and proceeded to execute most of them. I saw the devastation of his use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds. I saw his use of biological weapons against Iran during the 1980-1988 war.
Fortunately, I was an American reporter when he expelled me from his country for my reporting. If I had been an Arab, I would have been quickly executed.
When I was in Iraq, I had at least two spies watching everything I did. My friends from Iraq had been forced to leave the country.
It is clear that the war in Iraq has not gone as well as the Bush Administration and almost everyone had expected.
Nevertheless, there is a need for a sense of perspective. Slightly more than 3,000 soldiers have died during the past four years. That compares with 58,000 in roughly 10 years of fighting in Vietnam; 36,000 U.S. soldiers died in three years in Korea; and the figures are significantly higher in World Wars I and II during the time period.
Any death of a soldier is awful, but the numbers show that the rate is significantly smaller than any war in U.S. history expect the first Gulf War.
Therefore, the question arises: What is the nation willing to accept for security goals?
Also, keep in mind that the extent of Saddam's NBC (nuclear, bio, chem) arsenal was not as great as thought. But Iraq DID have a significant arsenal of NBC--just not what was thought.
Lastly, keep in mind the information we receive. Journalists have two choices in Iraq: covering the Green Zone (roughly eight square miles) or being embedded with the military. Both are not great sources of information.
I would suggest that it is important to seek other sources of information about Iraq. That is what this forum and the blogosphere are about.
Let go of what MSM (mainstream media) write. Take a look at what military blogs, soldiers' blogs, Iraqi blogs and other sources of information have to offer.
You can at www.truthlaidbear.com and follow the links. Bests.
While it is lamentable that we have lost any young men or women, you raise an excellent point, Mr. Harper, regarding the U.S. casualties in Iraq. It befuddles me that anyone uses that toll as an argument against a conflict that has gone on for nearly four years.
That said, do you believe that the nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal that the Iraqis possess(ed) was sufficient to invade a (somewhat) sovereign nation and mount a c'oup? To me, that almost belongs in the grouping of "Hussein was evil, and the world is better for losing him."
It's a big league of dictators in this world, we have to be selective in terms of threat assessment and use of force as I am sure you know better than I. The political and economic costs of a war without clear aim as well as the cost of the violence inflicted on the Iraqis are what I think make this war a difficult sell to a significant portion of the American public.
Re: Christopher Harper's comment about seeking out alternative sources of information.
One good one is called Alive in Baghdad. Brian Conley is an independent American journalist who spent several months reporting from Baghdad and Jordan during the course of the war, outside the Green Zone.
The project is now run by Conley and others from Boston and Philadelphia and the site features regular blogging and video podcasts from Iraqi journalists on the ground.
Very intriguing stuff.
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org
Andrew,
The NBC (nuclear, bio, chem) estimates were about the same from every country. Keep in mind, the allies found NBC; they simply did not find the number that had been estimated.
Saddam had used them in the past and had been engaged in a long-time haven for terrorists, such as Abu Nidal and the Jackal.
On the despot calculator (I rank people by number of people a despot killed or had killed), Saddam would rank high. If you put Stalin and Hitler as the top two (roughly 10 million each), Pol Pot would come in third (two million). Idi Amin is in the top 10 with 300,000 deaths at his hands. Saddam would come in between Pol Pot and Amin. That would easily put him in the top 10 despots of the 20th Century.
Lastly, you can go to www.truthlaidbear.com to find a variety of Iraqi bloggers.
Post a Comment