Did the US Media fail us as regards the war?

Great Debates
1

As we led up to the Iraq war, I often wondered what the hell our “liberal media” were doing, as it seemed so many of them were swallowing everything that came forth from the White House without even questioning it, especially the conflation of 9/11 and Sadaam.

Only recently has it appeared to me the media has grown some of their balls back and finally getting around to asking some real questions, and demanding real answers?

It appears that the media is asking themselves the same question, albeit possibly a bit late.

Did our media fail us pre-war? In what ways do you felt it failed us, if so? Do you think the media’s failings hurt our war effort?

For my part, I think the media did fail us. Whether they were afraid of being called traitors, or un-American, or some other reason I do not know, but it doesn’t seem to me the media did a good job at all pre-war, appearing for the most part to accept everything the White House told us at face value.

I think the appearance that they seemed to buy at face value everything Bush and Company was telling us hurt us greatly, as regards the war.

I often wonder if the media had been a bit more critical of the 9/11-Iraq conflation, would pro-war public opinion have been as strong? If we’d seen more of the anti-war feelings world-wide, would it have changed anything?

If they’d questioned the intelligence, or our government’s motives for the war, would it have changed anything? What could have been avoided altogether, if we’d questioned Bush’s post-war plan (or apparent lack thereof)?

2

The US Media failed us as regarding the entire Bush presidency – George W. has been throwing lies since before he got into office, but the media ignored all the bullstuff and merely told us he was Presidential Material because he didn’t drool on himself during his debates.

Ignoring Bush’s lies regarding the Iraq war was just another step in a long chain of inactivity and willful ignorance.

3

I wonder if it was the accusations of having a liberal bias that cowed the media into not being as skeptical of Bush as they should be. If they actually asked a tough question, they’d have to face the “liberal” charge. The “useless” and “cowardly” charges weren’t as bothersome, I suppose.

4

Of course: that was the admitted Republican strategy all along: a campaign to “work the refs.” Given that the ultimate refs of most media companies are conservatives, it’s not hard to see what good a little working will do.

But let’s not go overboard. There was indeed at lot of unfairness and knee-jerk often sometimes even totally clueless anti-conservative bias. Anyone who’s taken a journalism class knows that bias often works on scales sometimes too big for people to notice directly pointing at any one story or reading a transcript. And conservatives once got the short end of the stick, and they are still super-sensitive about it.

In the 2000 campaign, the media slaughtered Gore. In a Pew study, they found that stories on Gore were 5 to 1 in favor of enforcing negative themes over positive ones, while stories on Bush were 4 to 3 enforcing positive themes over negative ones. How anyone could claim that the media is effectively pro-liberal after something like that is beyond me. And the media essentially took a dive after 9/11, while the Bush spin machine kept right on ticking away, exploiting the free media and campaign energy of 9/11 for all it was worth.

5

That’s obviously (well, to me too) a very large part of it. Another part may be the need for access - this administration, far more than most (even Nixon’s), plays favorites with reporters, and that was true even in the campaign. Only ones who can be trusted not to embarrass Bush, or put him on the spot, get the coveted insider access, the interviews, the air time and column inches. That’s true for the senior officials too, not just Bush. A reporter who tries to do a reporter’s job is shut out and soon finds himself unable to do the job effectively.

Let’s not overlook the simple personal charm that Bush has and showed during the campaign, not much different from what Clinton showed and Gore did not. It may seem stupid to be affected by a regular slap on the back and a frat-house nickname, perhaps a game of cards on the campaign plane, but it’s real, it’s effective. Dale Carnegie gets laughed at but he was basically right. A reporter who thinks that won’t prevent him from reporting on an unrealistic fiscal policy, or a belligerent isolationist foreign policy, is probably kidding himself.

And then it’s just one step into the sheer tribalism and peer pressure of the Beltway media. They all talk to each other, they get their opinions du jour from each other, they interview each other fer chrissakes, they’re their own microsociety. If the views of the only people a reporter talks to all match the “Bush rocks, Gore is a dweeb” group opinion, he’s going to think that “flyover America” thinks so, too - or should, and will be made to via his brilliant reporting.

6

For examples, see the work of Elisabeth Bumiller at ye olde liberal bastion the NYTimes. She’s been penning a series of completely uncritical articles that basically put in her own words the weekly spin points of the Bush White house about what a great guy Bush is. Here’s the titles of her articles:

March 8: White House Letter: Bush Ready And Bursting To Bring It On
March 15: White House Letter: Want a Reliable President? Here’s One You Can Set Your Clocks By
March 18: Political Memo: Bush Glad to Be in the Campaign Fray and Not Above It
March 22: White House Letter: Running on a Campaign Trail Paved in Comfy Feathers
March 29: White House Letter: Shrinking the Glamour Gap in Texas, One Celebrity at a Time
April 5: White House Letter: The Women Behind Bush: They Promote and Defend, Nudge, Revere and Defer

And the content is much the same. If the Times ever did such pieces on Kerry, they’d be called propaganda-teers. So instead, they do pieces like Jodi Wilgoren’s hit piece on Kerry’s personal assistant, in which she frames the fact that, like every politician in existance, Kerry has a personal assistant that does menial tasks for him, into some sort of critique on Kerry’s character as a regal, aloof aristocrat who has someone make him his peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches. Or we get Kit Seelye, who was so dogged anti-Gore and pro-Bush in her role as a journalist on his campaign that even many right-wing pundits commented on how odd it was.

7

Does the US Media have any obligation to the US people ? I would wonder at that idea. If the people are willing to accept things face value then the Media can do whatever their bosses want them to do.

8

Does it have an obligation? I’m not sure.

Should it? Absolutely.

In a democracy the one true safegaurd against courruption and mismanagement by a government should be the fifth estate. It is the job of the press to ask the tough questions and dig around so that the public is made aware of what its government is up to.

Unfortunately because it is a business as well, (and always has been) you’ll find less risk takers in the media who don’t want to be on the outside when the President has a press conference or someone in the whitehouse speaks. Hell if they blow the chance by pissing off the wrong people, the public misses out on the chance to watch a pandering watered down propaganda fest presented as an interview with a high up in Washington.

So the result is they have to tone down any antagonism between the press and the government to ensure they don’t get scooped or their ratings don’t fall.

Personally I think the United States might be better off adopting a Canadian tradition of the Scrum. Every day the policy makers including the Prime Minister have to face the press after Question period in the House. They meet them dead on and answer the questions flung at them. No prepared speeches beforehand or hand selected pre approved questions. Just straight up question and answer.

You tend to get politicians that are either better informed (So as not to look like idiots) or faster on their feet (figuratively and literally).

9

Not to break up another Bush hating rant session and circle jerk, but:

The US Media gave the people EXACTLY what they wanted. Media is a business, just like any other, and at the time what the majority of the masses wanted was patriotic music, flags waving and banners flying, and touching scenes of soldiers and small children with puppies. Putting on anything else, criticizing, showing the ‘other side’ would have simply gotten them slammed. SHOULD they have? Of course they should have. But you can’t expect main stream Media organs to take that kind of risk when dollars are on the line. ANY main stream media, reguardless of national origin. No? Show me one that consistantly goes against the majority of its viewers desires and I’ll show you a media organization that isn’t long for this world.

They served it up to you on a platter because THATS what sold…thats what the ‘people’ wanted, and they got it in spades. They didn’t do it because they were afraid of Bush. snort They didn’t do it because they are right leaning or because the press doesn’t REALLY have a ‘liberal bias’. The press didn’t ever have a ‘liberal bias’ in the past…they leaned the way the PEOPLE wanted it to lean because THATS what made them M O N E Y. In the end, they did what they did because of the ratings.

Short answer is, the press didn’t ‘betray’ us…they did what they always do. When da people like it, when its spouting what they want to hear, then they are fat dumb and happy. When it turns out that what its spouting ISN’T quite what they REALLY wanted to hear (i.e. when the seas change), then they turn on it. And conversely, when trends change, the press suddenly ‘grows balls’…i.e. its now fashionable to go after Bush, to question the war, etc etc. NOW We Da Peoples can be happy again.

Ok, reality break is over. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled Bush bash and conspiricy session…

-XT

10

One thing that the media didn’t have going for it was the discipline of the Bush team. It was about as loyal, leakproof, and given to taking the lowest road to retribution as they come (petty retribution is the one thing the Bush administration does very well), so the media couldn’t work an inside the White House angle very well - except what was spoonfed to them. The White House always had the super top secret we know but we can’t tell trump card when it’s WMD information was called into question.

You can’t entirely fault the media for not covering the lastest outrage, though. It just seems like so many “this will blow the lid off…” type stories hit with a resounding thud.

11

With all due respect, my personal feelings about Bushco. notwithstanding, I did not start this thread as a “Bush-bashing rant session and circle jerk”, and I’d prefer you to not try and steer it that way or drag it down with your derogatory comments, thank you very much.

My issue in this thread is entirely with the media. Bush only enters it, because my OP was prefaced with the media’s dealings with him.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I suspect you’ve hit the nail exactly on the head.

Which brings us to a deeper question I suppose, and perhaps the question I should have asked in the first place, the one Rashak Mani posed:

12

My appologies. Occationally I’ve been know to fly off the handle and rant and rave.

I suppose it depends on how you see the media, not just in the US but in all the countries where there is a ‘free press’ but that also has privately controlled media outlets. The fact that they ARE privately controlled though brings about certain realities where money and market share are concerned.

If people REALLY want to dig, and are willing to go to multiple sources (and filter through the various spins), go to foriegn sources (and filter through THEIR spin), then you can generally get a good idea of whats going on. If you can’t be bothered, they you kind of have to take what they serve up.

-XT

13

That is the crux of the problem… people don’t want to dig or to have critical assesment of news. The media itself even if we discount conservative connections… does tend to dish out whatever is more agreeable to customers as regards hard subjects. Insightful analysis takes time and doesn’t sell.

So as a source of information the media has failed... unbiased info even more so. Unfortunately its very easy to just use what government gives you. Checking facts and numbers costs time and effort.
14

It would be nice if there were someone who we, the electorate, could count on. However, there’s no’ne but ourselves. As much of a hassle as it is to keep vigilant watch over our politicians there’s noone else worthy or trustable to abdicate the job to. I hope that the internet will continue to put our politicians under the scopes with increasing focus and magnification.

I also think that those news outlets who did make notable attempts to keep the Admin’s feet to the fire, like Knight-Riddder, etc, will benefit in the long run from what they’ve done.

I think that market forces are just beginning to force a new type of accounatbility on the news media for some of the same reasons that pols are beginning to feel the crunch of the internet. There’re innumerable outlets and avenues for information. Comparisons’re very, very easy.

So, I like, xt don’t think that the press actually betrayed us. It’d be nice if they were the vigilant watchdogs we’d like them to be. Even a mean cur’ll be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds it. The American electorate has to want some better coverage of the events of the day. I think that in greater and greater numbers we are searching out for more info. Increased consumption of info is, of course, limited by GIGO. I’m not sure how much of the American electorate are smart consumers of info yet.

15

Can you tell me more about this?

Why do you believe this is so?

Also, what is GIGO?

Lastly, great post. I agree most heartily that we get the press we deserve.

16

Garbage IN Garbage Out

17

Some great points brought up so far, and I’m especially intrigued by the possibility that the Internet is possibly the last “resource of truth” (assuming, of course, you have the time, energy, and resources to check, double-check and sift through the incredible amounts of crap also placed on the Internet. :wink: )

Speaking for myself personally, I don’t watch TV anymore. We cancelled our cable several months ago, and don’t even get local channels now, because we live in an apt. building. Frankly, with the exception of the Comedy Channel, I don’t miss it at all.

I rarely watched the news channels at any rate, and continue to get most of my news from the Internet. In fact, I’ll be really honest and say that this message board has become my “news source” of choice.

I get a ton of information here, as well as links to cites with facts, editorials, opposing opinions, etc, and I feel I get a FAR better “fair and balanced” view of the news here, than many other possible places. Via this board, I have registered with many of the major online newspapers that get linked here, and I’ve in general been exposed to a FAR larger amount of facts and information than you get in any amount of nightly news broadcasts, imo.

Is journalistic integrity, telling the truth for the sake of the Truth a thing of the past? Did it ever truly exist?

I pose a further question.

Do you feel the US media is compromised by the fact that many news outlets are increasingly being acquired by huge corporate conglomerates?

18

The U.S. media are (yes, are, not is, and that is part of my point) doing their jobs are well as any media in the world. Today, one’s access to such a broad array of media is astounding. Anyone who doesn’t take advantage of all the different world media, with all the different viewpoints, has only himself or herself to blame for being lazy and ignorant.

The media are not at fault. We are.