The War Pundits: Sam Power, McJoan, Danner, Mitchell

The media's coverage and advocacy of the Iraq War remains one of the most vexing problems in our politics. While many now agree that the traditional press overstated the case for war, underplayed opposition and tapped a decidedly unrepresentative and often biased punditocracy to debate our foreign policy, there's little consensus about how to fix the problems. And while the Internet has increased the political and business pressures on the traditional press, we don't know yet if new media will improve or further fracture our foreign policy debates. To tackle these questions, the Netroots Nation conference is convening an unusual panel this Saturday, which I'm moderating, with some important experts (and critics) on foreign policy, human rights and the media. So feel free to post comments and questions for:

Pulitzer-prize winning author and Harvard professor Samantha Power, who just published Chasing the Flame; Emmy-award winning New Yorker writer and Berkeley journalism professor Mark Danner, author of The Secret Way to War: The Downing Street Memo and the Iraq War's Buried History (and vigorous debater of Iraq hawks from Kristol to Hitchens); Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, award-winning columnist and author of So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq; and Joan McCarter, a front page blogger for DailyKos and former aide to Sen. Ron Wyden.

I hope the discussion will help pinpoint media failures in refereeing foreign policy debates and brainstorm specific ways to improve democratic discourse. That should be easy, in theory. For Iraq coverage, the liberal/netroots critique actually overlaps with the traditional media's stated goals of accuracy and balance. By relying too heavily on government sources from one party, most pre-war coverage misstated the threat and drastically underplayed opposition to the war among experts, political elites and the general public. According to one recent academic study:

Network TV stories in the eight months before the war quoted Bush administration officials for 29 percent of sources, while quoting Democratic officials for three percent of sources. The war pundits were shockingly unrepresentative of political reality. And grassroots antiwar groups "comprised just 1% of all quotes, making such dissent a drop in the bucket."

So even when activists build large movements -- some of the Iraq war protest broke world records -- media malpractice can limit their impact. And the virtual media blackout of Democratic opposition to the war, even as most Democratic congresspersons voted against it, exacerbated tensions between the progressive base and incumbents with a misleading narrative. Joan adds:

When the few dissident voices that were heard on a national stage rose up, they were easily dismissed. [...] And when it became increasingly clear that [the press], along with our Congress and the rest of the nation who lived inside the Beltway or voted Republican, was duped into going into war, it became increasingly important to not admit that. Which, I believe, is one of the reasons that the bombshell New York Times expose on the military/media propaganda machine was greeted by the rest of the media (and The Villagers) with nothing more than a resounding yawn. [It] should have been a game-changing revelation...

So how can activists make the media live up to its own mission and report reality in foreign policy debates? How can the public influence who is anointed to shape our nation's war punditry? And will the general public's antipathy towards the media ever translate into greater media accountability in this area?

Those are some of the questions, and we welcome more questions, ideas and comments from readers before Saturday. This is an open source panel, of course. (Post below or email me at amelber-at-hotmail.com.) Let's get to work.

Related:
Conference link for War Pundits Panel, 10:30am Saturday
Ustream link for viewing.
War pundits post at DailyKos
WesPac post on the panel

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

Comments

[SirReal1]

PBS and C-SPAN are nearly the only news that haven't been put through the "spin cycle" prior to presentation. At this point, the vast majority of "Main-stream" media outlets have made their transition to "for profit private entities" and as such can no longer be considered "reliable" for presenting real news or unbiased reporting.

Legislation that would provide for increased, uncompromised, and unalterable, funding for PBS, along with legislation to continue providing C-SPAN access, would be steps in the right direction.

Any legislation that either imposed restrictions on how much influence the Corporate Owners can exert in their Newsrooms reporting, or restricting Government provided propaganda from being reported without disclosure, would also help the situation.

If there were some way to preclude the head of the FCC from being a "political appointee" that would help too, but I really don't see this happening.

Beyond that, it is largely up to each of US to recognize how "influenced" by economic reality, and Corporate imperatives our News Media is.

[anticonformist911]

I think it's important to acknowledge the fact that half the democrats voted for the war. I agree that the media shares part of the blame, but I hope of the aspects are addressed.

[Shortyfuse]

Yep, corporate media are always ready to quote skewed polls, let's start a poll of what we think of the news medias one by one. I will start with a big zero for FOX and the Washingtion Post.

[SirReal1]

I'm sure I get your meaning on your rating of FOX, but you really should define your scale.

Zero could be a point of neutrality with negative numbers representing negative impressions and positives representing positive impressions.

Zero could also, just as easily be 0 faults or failures.

Personally I don't think any scale can accurately describe my "lack of trust" in anything FOX reports.