Does the American media cower from authority?

[Clucky]

Well, CP, you’ve got me on the “didn’t touch that story,” I’ll concede that. My memory was jumbled. I remember hearing about the bogus documents right after Powell’s speech, the very same day, and, you’re right, some media outlets did report it in the U.S. soon after.

But, I stand by my belief that the U.S. media didn’t do a good job following up on the story. In fact, looking at this story you cite, it’s obvious they’re letting the Administration off fairly easily. To wit:

… The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away – including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

“We fell for it,” said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

We fell for it? There were crude errors on this document, yet the U.S. used it to “prove” Iraq is amassing a nuclear program. And, “We fell for it,” is all we need to hear from the administration? You have to follow up and ask how could you fall for this with so much on the line. You have to do more. And, I consider the article you cited to be an example of decent mainstream American journalism.

Then, this at the end:

Powell’s spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.

Powell is let off the hook, big time, in this story. I expect more from Powell. And, I want followups, lots of them, about the Administration’s credibility. More investigative reporting, running in more papers, about whether the U.S. is playing loose with the facts.

That’s what I mean by these types of things weren’t “a focus of coverage.” As the war got closer and closer, it seemed like the reporting became even more one-sided. Then, you get what you get with the Bush news conference.

There were articles out there covering more than the company line, but the preponderance of information was very “pro-administration.” I obviously need to do a better job of supporting my point through examples. I’ll try to find time to do that soon.

[CyberPundit]

“You have to follow up and ask how could you fall for this with so much on the line. You have to do more”
Well there was a fair degree of follow-up. Read the CNN transcripts which were linked in my thread. This was a pretty big story for a while and IIRC there were questions asked in Congress as well. But you have to realize that beyond a certain point if you don’t obtain new information you can’t keep doing the same story again and again. And when it comes to national security matters you can generally obtain new information only if people in the government are willing to talk. So it’s not really in the control of the media.

[astorian]

Clucky knows far less about the U.S. media than he thinks he does, and Justin Webb knows even less.

I have my own set of critiques of the U.S. news media, but they’re not the same critiques my fellow conservatives tend to spout. The news media in the U.S. certainly aren’t conservative, but it’s been a long time since they were overwhelmingly dominated by the Left. Twenty-five years ago, TV news in the U.S. was dominated by serious journalists with an obvious set of political biases. Today, TV news in America is part and parcel of the entertainment business. And, unfortunately, that’s NOT an improvement.

In the U.S., news coverage of war has been “dumbed down,” and the focus of war coverage is now cheesey human interest stories. A generation ago, newscasters thought it was their job to educate and enlighten their viewers. Today, more often, they think it’s their job to entertain their viewers, preferably by creating mini-soap operas for their viewers.

Clucky is operating under a delusion: that the federal government tells the U.S. media what to believe, and they swallow it whole. Nonsense! The media drive much of what the government does. And the mission to rescue Jessica Lynch is a reflection of that reality.

In the early days of the war, the U.S. forces’ every mishap and misstep were widely reported. If you go back and look at the media coverage of the first few weeks of the fighting, you’ll see that the U.S. media was far from fawning. Indeed, the U.S. media made it appear that the war was going very badly for American troops, that the invasion was a fiasco, that our commanders had completely botched the planning, and that we were slipping into a bloody quagmire.

In the first few weeks, whenever a U.S. soldier disappeared, died or was captured, it was only a matter of hours before that soldier’s mother, siblings, and wife/girlfriend was on “Good Morning America” or “The Today Show,” sobbing and pleading for their loved ones’ safe return. I saw such news features dozens of times in the first weeks of the invasion.

Now, THAT kind of coverage is not driven by anti-war ideology, but the end result can be the same. During the Viet Nam war, Walter Cronkite tried to show the grim horrors of combat, in order to horrify his audience and turn them against the war. Today, Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric parade grieving moms and wives before the cameras, to create compelling television. But while Couric and Sawyer are not driven by anti-war fever, as Cronkite was, they STILL end up turning Americans against war in dribs and drabs. The American media were, unintentionally, Saddam Hussein’s best weapon. He couldn’t defeat American forces in combat, but he HOPED he could kill and/or capture enough U.S. troops here and there that domestic public pressure would lead the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq.

When Jessica Lynch was reported captured, the potential P.R. damage appeared devastating. Just imagine millions of Americans glued to the TV, worrying about poor Jessica, watching Jessica’s weeping Mom beg for the release of her daughter and the end of the war!

Seeing the potential for a P.R. disaster, President Bush and his military advisers decided that Jessica Lynch had to be rescued. Was she important in her own right? Of course not! No more important than any other U.S. soldier, at any rate. But since she was, potentially, Saddam Hussein’s best P.R. tool, she had to be rescued.

Get the idea? George W. Bush was feeling pressured by the media to “do something” to save a female G.I. ! And if he didn’t saver her right away, the effects on homefront morale could have been awful. I have no doubt that Jessica Lynch would have been THE story on American TV news, round the clock, until she was released.

From a purely military standpoint, was it NECESSARY to rescue Miss Lynch? No. Even if it WERE necessary, did U.S. forces have to go in after her with so many guns blazing and with camera crews covering their every move? We now know they did NOT have to. But get something straight here: George W. Bush did not concoct a scenario and then order the U.S. media to cover it. Just the opposite! The U.S. media were already obsessed with Jessica Lynch, which put inordinate pressure on the President to do something to get her out.

Understand? It’s NOT as if President Bush staged an unnecessary rescue and trumpeted this rescue to the press, who slavishly reported it. Rather, President Bush staged an unnecessary rescue in response to the American news media’s constant barrage of “What are you doing about Jessica” questions.

[Clucky]

About that thread, some interesting quotes:

Anyway I hope there is a public enquiry about who supplied these documents to the US and why the US and the Brits were so gullible. Hopefully it’s frontpage appearance in the WaPo means it’s not going to be brushed under the carpet.

Don’t count on it. My own personal favorite whopper, Bush flaunting the Report That Never Existed, never got explained either. They simply removed it from their talking points and kept on going as if nothing had ever happened. Down the memory hole and poof! gone.

The information provided on this thread amazes me even more. How could I, a fairly regular comsumer of television news, not have noticed this major flaw earlier? Thank you CyberPundit for pointing this out. It appears that the US has no response to the proof that their claims have been shown false.

In that thread, there were a few sources talking seriously about this.

But, there was no major inquiry. There was no public outcry.

Part of that is because the Democrats are snivelling cowards and didn’t want to challenge the administration and look like they’re “soft on foreign policy.” Another part of it goes back to the OP. Our reporters don’t challenge authority figures. Powell just didn’t even address the issue, really. Unless the media put his feet to the fire, it wasn’t going to work.

I know what you mean about new developments feeding the story. That also played a part of it, I agree. But, it doesn’t explain why Powell’s answers weren’t played up bigger in the media. I mean, the guy basically just brushes this off, and it was ridiculous that he was selling this slop in front of the UN and the rest of the world.

[Clucky]

astorian, here’s an account from the Wash Post about the Lynch story that might give you a better idea as to how this happened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2760-2003Jun16.html?nav=hptop_tb

An excerpt:

As the world would remember, Lynch and her Army maintenance unit were ambushed in southern Iraq on the morning of March 23. Eleven of her fellow soldiers were killed; five others were taken captive and later freed. Blond and waiflike, Lynch was taken prisoner and held separately for nine days before a dramatic nighttime rescue from her hospital bed by a covert U.S. Special Operations unit, Task Force 20.

Initial news reports, including those in The Washington Post, which cited unnamed U.S. officials with access to intelligence reports, described Lynch emptying her M-16 into Iraqi soldiers. The intelligence reports from intercepts and Iraqi informants said that Lynch fought fiercely, was stabbed and shot multiple times, and that she killed several of her assailants.

“She was fighting to the death,” one of the officials was quoted as saying. “She did not want to be taken alive.”

These were initial news reports. The Lynch story was broken as a big propaganda piece, not as a response to media pressure.

Read the link to learn more about this. I think the Post did a decent job backtracking in this article to get closer to the truth.

[Clucky]

*Originally posted by astorian *
**Clucky is operating under a delusion: that the federal government tells the U.S. media what to believe, and they swallow it whole. Nonsense! The media drive much of what the government does. And the mission to rescue Jessica Lynch is a reflection of that reality.

In the early days of the war, the U.S. forces’ every mishap and misstep were widely reported. If you go back and look at the media coverage of the first few weeks of the fighting, you’ll see that the U.S. media was far from fawning. Indeed, the U.S. media made it appear that the war was going very badly for American troops, that the invasion was a fiasco, that our commanders had completely botched the planning, and that we were slipping into a bloody quagmire.

In the first few weeks, whenever a U.S. soldier disappeared, died or was captured, it was only a matter of hours before that soldier’s mother, siblings, and wife/girlfriend was on “Good Morning America” or “The Today Show,” sobbing and pleading for their loved ones’ safe return. I saw such news features dozens of times in the first weeks of the invasion.

Now, THAT kind of coverage is not driven by anti-war ideology, but the end result can be the same. **

Well, that ignores the fact that most sources on American TV news shows used a high degree of offical sources, and aired few anti-war voices. Here’s a study:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

Some excerpts (my bolding of the unbelievable statement that NOT ONE anti-war guest was invited in for a sitdown interview):

Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

As noted in earlier FAIR studies, over-reliance on official sources leaves little room for independent policy critics or grassroots voices. At a time when dissent was quite visible in U.S. society, with large anti-war demonstrations across the country and 27 percent of the public telling pollsters they opposed the war (Bulletin’s Frontrunner, 4/7/03), the networks largely ignored anti-war opinion in the U.S.

The FAIR study found just 3 percent of U.S. sources represented or expressed opposition to the war. With more than one in four U.S. citizens opposing the war and much higher rates of opposition in most countries where opinion was polled, none of the networks offered anything resembling proportionate coverage of anti-war voices. The anti-war percentages ranged from 4 percent at NBC, 3 percent at CNN, ABC, PBS and FOX, and less than 1 percent–one out of 205 U.S. sources–at CBS.
While the percentage of Americans opposing the war was about 10 times higher in the real world as they were on the nightly news (27 percent versus 3 percent), their proportion of the guestlist may still overstate the degree to which they were able to present their views on U.S. television. Guests with anti-war viewpoints were almost universally allowed one- sentence soundbites taken from interviews conducted on the street. **Not a single show in the study conducted a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war. **

Anti-war sources were treated so fleetingly that they often weren’t even quoted by name. While 80 percent of all sources appearing on the nightly news shows are identified by name, 42 percent of anti-war voices went unnamed or were labeled with such vague terms as “protester” or “anti-war activist.” Only one leader of an anti-war group appeared as a source: Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, a New York-based organizer of anti-war marches, appeared on a March 27 CNN segment in a one-sentence soundbite from an on-the-street interview.

As for your complaint with the “quagmire” predictions, mostly by disgruntled U.S. military or former military, FAIR’s study addresses that:

Former military personnel, who often appeared in longer-format, in-studio interviews, rather than in soundbites, characteristically offered technical commentary supportive of U.S. military efforts. In a typical comment, retired general (and CNN consultant) Wesley Clark told Wolf Blitzer on April 6: “Well, the United States has very, very important technological advantages. Unlike previous efforts in urban combat, we control the skies.” Analysis by these paid military commentators often blended into cheerleading, as with Clark’s comment from the same interview: “First of all, I think the troops and all the people over there, the commanders, have done an absolutely superb job, a sensational job. And I think the results speak for themselves.”

Though some of these analysts criticized military planning, and were attacked for doing so by the administration and its allies (New York Times, 3/31/03), the rare criticisms were clearly motivated by a desire to see U.S. military efforts succeed. For instance, while NBC’s hired analyst, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, said he expected the U.S. to prevail in the war, he worried that there weren’t sufficient ground troops in place for an expected battle for the city of Baghdad (3/25/03): “We have no business taking on that mission unless we’re prepared to decisively employ combat power.”

Of a total of 840 U.S. sources who are current or former government or military officials, only four were identified as holding anti-war opinions–Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), Rep. Pete Stark (D.-Calif.) and two appearances by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio). Byrd was featured on PBS, with Stark and Kucinich appearing on Fox News.

Appears that, yes, there were complaints, but none of the variety that we shouldn’t even be in Iraq. Just that we should be kicking ass much better, or differently, than this.

[Clucky]

An American columnist’s perspective on the Justin Webb piece. He wonders: Are U.S. journalists truly spinless?

Some bits (I bolded the part that was most interesting to me):

Webb raised the question after hearing Vice President Dick Cheney deliver the following statement in reference to the war in Iraq: “You did well - you have my thanks.” This praise was not directed to our troops or members of the president’s Cabinet; it was lavished upon members of the American Radio and Television Correspondents Association at their annual dinner.

Most of us whose bylines appear in the American media should be embarrassed to look our readers, viewers and listeners in the eye. We are being held up for ridicule by real journalists, such as Webb, from nations that once looked upon us as the epitome of truth and integrity. The ridicule is richly deserved.

Members of the American news media should be asking the question that Webb has presented. Are American journalists spineless? Or have the people who once wielded the editorial sword with such class and power caved in to the bean counters who run the media conglomerates? Either way, we have failed, and it’s only going to get worse unless individual journalists begin to stand up and reclaim our place as the guardians of liberty.

**A few weeks back, I saw Attorney General John Ashcroft on one of the round-the-clock news channels, testifying before a congressional committee about the new law enforcement powers he would like to see added to the so-called Patriot Act. The next day, out of curiosity, I searched online through traditional newspapers - large and small - across the country for a headline or at least a story about Ashcroft’s plans for a new power grab. It was as if Ashcroft hadn’t said anything of importance.

On an almost a daily basis, you can tune in to the Donald Rumsfield show on the round-the-clock television news and watch that jovial old guy insulting the intelligence of so-called American journalists. With his folksy, down-home demeanor, he sloughs off questions and rambles on as he pleases. Nobody calls his hand because nobody wants to end up at the back of the room at the next press conference.**

I’m just a worn-out old cop, a jackleg journalist without a degree in journalism, political science or constitutional law - but I understood what it meant when I informed the people I arrested of their constitutional rights. And I know that people entrusted with the responsibility of reporting the news should not be acting as cheerleaders for the president of the United States and his administration - or anyone else for that matter.

Journalists of the United States of America, unite; we have nothing to lose but our shame.

About the author: David Hunter, who writes this column for The News-Sentinel, is a free-lance writer and former Knox County sheriff’s deputy. You can write him at P.O. Box 1124, Powell, TN 37849. His e-mail address is ursus333@comcast.net.