It's been a very bad week for American journalism. The fun began when former Bush administration press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he pointed out that the Iraq disaster was enabled, in part, by the failure of the media to do their job.
Their job was to do something other than simply reprint and rebroadcast propaganda fed to them by, among other people, McClellan himself. But this turned out to be too much to ask.
That they were reprinting propaganda, rather than engaging in actual reporting, was obvious at the time. As my friend Jon Chait pointed out four years ago in The New Republic, McClellan wasn't a very good press secretary, because he was a terribly transparent liar. This made him particularly unqualified to defend the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
But in the end it didn't make any difference, because most of the media were more than happy to be lied to. Indeed the most shocking aspect of McClellan's book is how little new information is in it: we've known for years now that the White House was peddling pure claptrap when it claimed Iraq posed a threat to the United States.
We've also known - because institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have admitted as much - that the elite American media largely failed to ask critical questions of the government in the run-up to the war, and that they took, in McClellan's words, a markedly "deferential" attitude toward the administration.
What's new are some of the extraordinary arguments being put forth by the media themselves to explain and defend the commission of journalistic malpractice on such a catastrophic scale. Perhaps the most stunning defense appeared in the Los Angeles Times, where Tim Rutten's review of McClellan's book included this astounding passage:
"The news media, no less than the nation, endured a wrenching trauma on 9/11 and no less than any other institution in society felt the moral obligation to demonstrate solidarity with a country under deadly threat. In that situation, not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, when it presented 'facts' it said were based on the best and most sensitive intelligence available from the CIA and other spy agencies, would have been mindlessly adversarial."
Got that? It wasn't the media's fault for failing to question the government's explanation for starting a war, because . . . wait for it . . . 9/11 changed everything! To even raise the question of whether the Bush administration was telling the truth when it claimed Iraq posed a serious threat to America would have been "mindlessly adversarial," rather than, say, the bare minimum anyone should expect from competent journalists.
Even so, Rutten's post-traumatic stress disorder defense for journalistic malpractice wasn't the most ridiculous thing printed in the wake of McClellan's book. That prize goes to CNN, which ran a story about current CNN reporter Jessica Yellin, who was with MSNBC in the months before the Iraq war. Yellin says she felt pressured by senior MSNBC producers to do positive stories about the Bush administration, because corporate executives believed such stories would garner higher ratings than critical coverage.
(Again, such revelations are nothing new. It's long been known, for example, that MSNBC canceled what was then its highest- rated program because executives thought host Phil Donahue's willingness to interview antiwar guests would be bad for ratings).
So what did CNN entitle its story about Yellin's charges? Was it "MSNBC Producers Knowingly Broadcast Government Propaganda?" Was it "Corporate News Executives Sacrifice Truth for Profit?" Was it "Journalistic Failures Help Cause Deaths of Hundreds of Thousands?" No it was this: "CNN Reporter Talks of Pressure to be Patriotic."
It appears that, for our contemporary media, "being patriotic" has come to mean "broadcasting government lies in the pursuit of higher ratings." Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling grimly.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
June 4, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Invertebrate law professors?
June 4, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Campos is the one "peddling pure claptrap". Another lefty rant about how the administration lied to us without the footnote that the administration shared it's intelligence with Congress who signed off on the war after coming to the same conclusion.
The loyal opposition and the media didn't become afraid to question the administration after 9-11, they became stunned and for a while actually got smarter and agreed with the admisistration, until their personal interests resurfaced and the inane lies began again.
That reporter wasn't being pressured by her media bosses to be patriotic but to be balanced and fair in her reporting, which she resisted because her agenda was anti-American, much like Campos.
June 4, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
So it's not that you aren't being patriotic but instead anti-American?? That makes a lot of sense there Mike. This war was unnecessary and no matter how you spin it, the media sat on their hands while we were mis-lead by the incompetent White House.
June 4, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Anti-American?? Hahahahaha. That is the biggest oxymoron I have every heard. It is American to argue. It is American to speak your mind freely. It is American to confront, be skeptical, challenge the status quo. Anti-American is following your leader, truth be damned. I have yet to read anyone who uses the term Anti-American who isn't actively being Anti-American.
June 4, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
CU59Skier writes:
Campos is right for the wrong reason. George Orwell likely is smiling grimly somewhere - driven to that grimness by thinkers like Campos who were lampooned by his famous writing.
June 4, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
CU59Skier- go back to skiing. George Orwell, nee Eric Blair, was an anti-authoritarian socialist who would have depolored the Bush/Cheney administration.
June 4, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Funny, I saw the headline and thought that Professor Campos would be writing about the Obama candidacy.
Orwell was indeed an anti-authoritative socialist, which is why he would have cheered the invasion of Iraq, as did his principal biographer, Christopher Hitchens.
June 4, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roader writes:
Neatly packaging Orwell as an "anti-authoritarian socialist" overly simplifies the man. In "The Road to Wigan Pier" (1937), Orwell writes:
"...In the end I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone. This of course was sentimental nonsense [or as Mr. Potter played by Lionel Barrymore would have said in the movie, It's a Wonderful Life, “sentimental hogwash!”—ed.]. I see now as I did not see then, that it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly; the alternative is Al Capone."
June 4, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
tim.truemper writes:
For those who find Campos reasoning to be "pure claptrap" and who argue that the Congress had "the same intelligence" and authorized the war--you are mistaken. The Congress actually did not get the entire intelligence picture. They got a distorted view orchestrated by the Bush Administration's own self-created intelligence group "The Office of Special Plans". George Tennet of the CIA meekly went along with the whole charade. I would ask readers who continue with the myths about the run up to the war to watch the Frontline documentaries about this or to read "Fiasco" or the "One Percent Doctrine."
June 4, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
RT writes:
Tim.Truemper is correct, as is Mr. Campos. It was obvious even before the invasion that the Bush administration's claims that Iraq represented a proximate threat to the U.S. were a complete fabrication.
June 4, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnHKennedy writes:
This is a terrific opportunity for both the Media and Congress to cleanse themselves of any guilt for allowing Cheney and Bush to get away with an illegal war and occupation of Iraq.
There is plenty of evidence that Cheney and Bush have lied and that those lies caused the needless deaths of US Soldiers, the same as if Cheney and Bush had murdered them.
It is still not too late for America's Media to expose Cheney and Bush for the liars they are. The Democrats in Congress who were lied to by this pair of incompetents need the support of the Media. The Media needs to start calling for investigations leading to Impeachment Hearings. Congressional Democrats might actually honor their oath to protect our Constitution if they thought the Media were behind them.
The Media needs to cease ignoring the crimes of the Cheney/Bush administration and recognize the immediate need to clear the air on the WMD lies.
John H Kennedy, Denver, 43 yr Democratic voter
June 4, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
I'm yet to be convinced that a president Gore would have done anything differently.
June 4, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
President Gore would not have had the need to "finish what his daddy started" in Iraq. President Gore did not have the Saddam Hussein fixation that Bush had. From day one of 9/11, Bush tried to figure out how to blame Iraq.
How a President Gore would have handled Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, I don't know. But unlike what his detractors say, he would have taken action. And, since he would not have been distracted by an obsession with Iraq, he might have stayed the course in Afghanistan and seen it through.
President Bush is the classic kid with no attention span. Before the US military could begin to complete their mission in Afghanistan, he took off for Iraq. So now the next president has two completely fouled-up messes to try to figure out how to clean up. And I still think that Bush wants to create a third in Iran.
Campos is right: The media rolled over and played dead during Bush's build-up to Iraq. They were afraid that any skepticism, any doubts, any hard questions would cause the Ann Coulter/Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/lock-step Republican crowd to scream "Treason!" This was the period when Coulter was making millions by screaming "All liberals are traitors!", when any criticism of the president was called "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which is the US Constitution definition of treason.
VVVV is right: It is the essence of Americanism to question authority. Mike is wrong: It is not "smart" for the press to agree with everything the president says or does, it is brainless.
June 4, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
peterpi,
Your first sentence is silly, and you know it.
The thought experiment deals with the situation as it was in Spring, 2003. I agree that a President Gore would have acted responsibly in reaction to 911 and the WMD uncertainty. (The rightwingers who paint him as a wuss are full of it.)
Due to Saddam's statements, his disinformation campaign inflating his WMD capabilities and the great fear of the possiblity of his collaboration with AQ, it is natural that whoever is president would have followed a forceful policy. Demanding inspectors and then placing a potential invasion force in Kuwait to enforce that demand is a policy that even Jimmy Carter would have followed.
Once the force is in Kuwait, the inertial pressure to use it would be nearly irresistable. The longer that it stays there, the more its operational strength is degraded. If it is returned to garrisons in the US and Europe and then must return because of an expulsion of inspectors or other provocation by Saddam, its capabilities are even more damaged. Nobody at the time trusted Saddam to accept inspectors in good faith.
If the troops are to be used, there is the onset of the hellish heat of summer to factor in. (Remember, the fear of Saddam's WMD was real enough that our soldiers had to do everything in chemical/biological suits ... )
The gun was cocked and the gun was pointed ...
I think that a President Gore would also have fired.
He may have made many different decisions about post combat operations, and just might have withdrew sooner. But, he would have been subject to much of the same bureaucratic intertia as Bush.
I also think that Gore would have followed the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. There is no "follow through" feasible in that mountainous, underdeveloped and tribal country. The occupation of Iraq has been a nightmare, to occupy Afghanistan in force is simply too painful to even contemplate. We wisely paid attention to the British and Soviet experiences and chose limited operations to topple the Taliban and support a successor govt. with the smallest footprint possible. Gore would have done the same.
It makes a great talking point, but going after bin Ladin in force would result in Iwo Jima scale casualties.
June 4, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I still say that had Hillary been president through these wars, the right would have imploded in angst.
Compos is right, the press was afraid of being called unAmerican, unpatriotic, and traitors, because Bush, (really Karl Rove) used the 9-11 momentum to start this war and occupation.
All this to put a democracy in the Middle East. There are already two of them there; Israel and Turkey.
Those posters who only hurl insults and make silly bu bu but Gore arguments are intellectual midgets. These are the people who blindly followed Bush into the Iraq war, and there is no way they will ever admit they were used. It is easy to say, I made a mistake but for some, it is not possible to face the fact of being tricked.
Or as Bush would try to say, "fool me once shame on you, fool me again you can`t fool me".
June 4, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
me2,
Speaking for all of the aggrieved intellectual midgets in the world, I'd like to ask what kind of thrill you get from tossing ad hominems? Especially trite and hackneyed ad hominems? Do you giggle? Or does the thrill run up your leg?
You're right. The right probably would have imploded in angst at a HRC presidency, and she would probably have followed roughly the same set of policies. Ideology is cool, but events have a way of forcing decisions.
Campos is a solipsistic dilettante. The press was following the same template as WWII and the early days of Korea and Vietnam. It is an instinctual imperative for the community to close ranks in a time of crisis.
June 4, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Konyok,
A President Gore would not have been under the internal, self-created pressure that President Bush had. I seriously doubt that, barely after limited operational success in Afghanistan, a President Gore would have essentially abandoned it, and gone gunning for Iraq. Call it ad hominem, call it whatever the hell you want, but President Bush had something to prove to himsef, and to others. Bigger thinkers than I am, both left and right, have stated it. Also, he was the point for a group of neocons who felt that Bush Senior didn't finish the job, anf by golly, they were going to do it right this time.
If I recall correctly, in a book in which he discussed the situation, well before Bush Junior won the presidency, President Bush Senior stated his precise reasons for not going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, and capturing Saddam Hussein. I think most of his points have come out exactly as he stated them. But Junior was going to prove Senior wrong. Five years later, we're still dealing with the aftermath.
And there were some media outlets, the New Yorker on the left among others, some on the right, who were questioning President Bush's selective use of unverfied inteliigence to push the war with Iraq, and were asking the press to do their job.
June 4, 2008
6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The irony is lost on those desperate conservatives who now find themselves defending the most spineless wimps in American media.
June 4, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
peterpi,
The primary military goal in Afghanistan was achieved. The search for bin Ladin was and remains a special forces effort, not a large scale offensive. It is BS to say "We were diverted." Afghanistan is possibly the most difficult place to fight a war. The Soviets were beaten and they have railroads leading right up to the Afghan border. We do not have the logistic ability to maintain a large force in Afghanistan. The only land route available to us is through the Khyber pass - the very place where the British army was massacred in 1842 by the Pashtuns. Nothing has changed since then, it's a two lane gravel road with thousands of ambush opportunities. We can only support a limited force by airlift into Baghram airport.
The other problem is that we really want to avoid inciting the Afghans into a holy war against our troops. Afghanistan is the historic killing ground of invading armies.
You still haven't convinced me that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Faced with the same situation and having the same tools as Bush, he would have responded in a very similar way. You could make the argument that he might have conducted the war more competently, but leaving Saddam in place with the sanctions regime eroding is not an option that Bush, the Clintons or Gore would have chosen.
I supported Bush sr. in his decision not to topple Saddam. It was an enormous mistake. The suffering of the Iraqis under a decade of sanctions is quite possibly the worst karma for this country since Hiroshima or Dresden. Those who argue that Saddam was "in his box" are despicable.
June 4, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
I refuse to defend the media and their opinion articales. Though it is true that a Bush did a bad job, the blame is on the wrong one. In 91 when we had the Iraqis Bush Sr., caved and halted Shwartzkauf from putting and end to mass genocide and the initial threat of the Islamofacists that are now recieving so much lip service from the left.
June 4, 2008
8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Konyok, How dare you accuse my of posting something trite and hackneyed? That is almost as bad as accusing me of plagiarism! Or bad spelling.
The only hominid I attacked was Karl Rove, who led Bush into this by playing up the mans desire to show up his dad.
No one wants to be played for a fool. That is what Bush et al did, they played some of us for fools. Yes communities gather together in times of crisis, which is all the more reason to deplore Bushes behavior.
You can end your mental migethood by carefully reading my posts and agreeing with my wisdom.
Thank you for commenting on my What if Hillary had invaded Iraq question. Now, another. If you were Obama, and the U. S. president was hunting you down, who would scare you the most: Bush or Hillary?
Me, I wouldn`t fear Bush, he gets to easily distracted.
Mental midget, humph. Ease up on the midgets.
June 4, 2008
9:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
The media should not cast doubt on the presidents decisions, be he a republican or democrat.
June 4, 2008
10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The war on terrorism is a bogus war. You can use police to track down the goat herders and religious fanatics that committed the atrocities on Sept 11, 2001. Mind you, they probably need to be heavily armed police backed up by an army.
If Bush could pull his head out of his rectum for two minutes, he would have caught Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, Afghanistan back in 2002. Instead, he let infighting between the military and the CIA carry the day. They lost bin Laden and now they're loosing the entire war. I don't know about you but I hate watching losers bring my country down.
Al Qaeda was nearly finished. Our army could then have pursued them into Waziristan and finished them off. Now, thanks to Bush's War in Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have regrouped in Waziristan and established a subsidiary in Iraq where there was none before. The Taliban control most of Afghanistan and the parts they don't control are up for grabs.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and that entire cadre of bumbling morons fabricated the whole case against Saddam Hussein. Making war on him had negative strategic value in fighting Al Qaeda because he was their enemy. He was also an enemy of Iran, so destroying him had negative strategic value in dealing with them.
I hope you conservatives are happy with this state of affairs. And I hope these are the last happy moments of your entire lives because when the reckoning comes due, you stand a good chance of being held to account.
June 4, 2008
10:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Konyok, of course we were diverted from Afghanistan. Our pre-occupation is now Iraq.
Sweetpickle, people question the president's decisions all the time. It's part of being the U.S., of being a Democracy. Media outlets questioned Clinton's decisions, and we survived. Of course, media outlets should question Bush's decisions.
June 5, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
The war on terrorism is a bogus war. You can use police to track down the goat herders and religious fanatics that committed the atrocities on Sept 11, 2001. Mind you, they probably need to be heavily armed police backed up by an army.
by HolierThanThou
Do you read what you post?
Hmmm...."backed up by an army" and just how do you get an army there to back them up??
Seems the USA congress decided to vote for sending the army there to back them up!
This included the Democrats and Republicans votes.
This says it all correctly!
"CAMPOS: An invertebrate media"
Nuff Said!
June 5, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Thanks Konyok for the reply to peterpi’s stupid, not silly remark. He like the rest of the leftist/socialist’s constant vilification of President Bush—trumpeting their call Bush lied---ignores that every Intelligence Service in the world thought Hussein had WMD. The dumb a-s himself may have thought he had them because his people lied to him to cover up their incompetence or inability to perfect the chemical weapons.
Any talk that a president Gore would have gone to war in Afghanistan ignores he was Clinton’s VP and comes from a history of Clinton cowardliness typified by shooting some missiles at an aspirin factory instead of going after the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing. Your background on the Afghanistan situation is however perfectly on the money. The other difference is the Russians invaded to stay and keep Afghanistan in their empire.
The US has no imperialistic interest in taking over other countries. That is the shame of the vile spewed by the likes of Campos, Soros and their sycophants like peterpi who blame America First and do their best to denigrate this country’s motives for the benefit of world Socialism. Isn’t interesting the European countries are running away from their historical socialism when the US is being pushed towards that failed model.
The American Press is not failing because of a lack of vertebra. It is a lack of credibility. They are conspiring propagandist for the leftists and offer up no credibility or objectivity in their reporting. That is why they are losing readership and cannot change their business model to compete with the many other sources of news available today where people can go when they know they are being propagandized in lieu of honest reporting.
June 5, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Orwell was an egalitarian.
Moving on...
Konyok: "I'm yet to be convinced that a president Gore would have done anything differently."
This is assuming 9/11 would have even happened on Gore's watch. Perhaps Gore would have taken seriously, actually READ his daily security briefings that warned bin Laden might be planning a terrorist attack using planes. Perhaps Gore would have seen to it the airlines were warned. Perhaps Gore wouldn't have been on vacation the entire month before 9/11. Perhaps his previous eight months in office would have been concerned with preventing terrorist attacks, as that is what the Clinton administration warned the new administration would be their chief security concern. Mindful of that, perhaps Gore have had his National Security Advisor focusing on thwarting terrorist attacks, instead of...whatever Rice was focusing on.
June 5, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Preventing attacks on the US like his former boss? As in WTC - 1993, Kenya and Tanzania - 1998, USS Cole - 2000, and others...? PUUHHHLLEEAAASSSEEEE!!!!
BTW - Anyone interested in current massacres in Iraq, check this out: http://michaelyon-online.com/index.ph...
June 6, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
That the author thinks the media isn't Left enough and that it isn't bringing to light enough leftist propaganda just shows you how far left this dude is.
June 9, 2008
4:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mwstroberg writes:
I get so sick of this partisan left vs right claptrap. The fact is that the leadership of both major political parties are authoritarian socialist warmongers. The only major party candidate for President this year who even remotely supported freedom and peace was Ron Paul, and even he took an authoritarian socialist position on immigration (he supports legal restrictions on immigration, which goes against the laissez-faire free market position of open borders).
June 10, 2008
12:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hrothgar writes:
Yes, the MSM and Congress both failed miserably. We must also, however, look in the mirror. Until most of us understand that our empire, our imperial military presence in foreign lands, invites blowback incidents on American soil and perpetuates endless and often senseless confrontations abroad we will never restore our republic and be able to enjoy the fruits of peace.
June 10, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
epaminondas writes:
OMG YOU ARE ALL PATHETIC!