McClellan's Missile: Media Crimes As War Crimes

Duh: The Bush Administration deployed a dishonest but very effective propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq War to the American people on virtually every media outfit. Their "Culture of Deception" is now acknowledged.

How do we know? Scotty McClellan told us so. It's all in the former Press Secretary's new book. And, happily, it's all over the news.

It's easy to put McClellan down. On the right he's a traitor. The President dismissed him as "sad." Karl Rove compared him to a left-wing blogger. Most of the real left-wing bloggers were equally contemptuous suggesting he's just trying to sell books, some asking: Why did he wait so long? Wasn't he part of the plot? Is this just the pot calling the kettle black?

Yes, but, at least, he had the courage, these many years later, to confirm what I and other have been saying for years. And he didn't avoid taking a poke at the media which did the Administration's job for them by carrying unverified claims as facts, while blocking out any other narrative. To his credit, McClellan called our media "deferential, complicit enablers."

He's not the first rat to jump ship and won't be the last. Think of him like the informants who turn on the mafia. The fact that a high profile former propagandist blew a whistle matters in the same way that it was a former Vietnam strategist named Daniel Ellsberg, who with Anthony Russo, exposed the Pentagon Papers. We all knew the government had lied then, but the Pentagon Papers explained how they did it. (The Papers came out in 1971; the war had been underway since l945.)

Ellsberg was branded a rat too. But without rats, prosecutors can't get convictions. In Ellsberg's case, he was the one convicted. Lets hope that in McClellan's case, we can get to the real criminals in the dock along with the many who collaborated with them.

To be honest, what's needed here are not more confessions by political insiders but an actual trial of the perpetrators. This government strategy, and the media coverage that served it, were not just mistakes or lapses in otherwise accurate coverage but crimes with real world consequences. Try a million dead in Iraq, and 40,000 Americans. And counting...

As I and others probed into the daily indifference to Iraqi suffering and the continuing orchestration of pro-war coverage, we came to see the problem not as continuously flawed reporting or even as a series of institutional failures, but in the same way as many whistleblowers tend to view the practices they expose--as a crime.

Given the number of lives lost and the amount of money wasted, these were the moral equivalents of serious felonies. When crimes take place in other settings, eventually government officials step in. As the scandals become public, there are exposés and then prosecutions. In this case, it is the government committing the crime, and the media, in essence, covering it up.

Yes, media crimes rationalize war crimes. Both are shameful and worthy of indictment.

Official scrutiny of media practices rarely happens, partly because of Constitutional protections afforded journalists and media outlets, and partly because wronged parties have little recourse.

It's hard to fight back against media irresponsibility. Public shaming seems the only response, and its effectiveness depends on whether critics can be heard in the so-called public square. In the case of Iraq, there were 800 experts on all the channels in the run-up to the war. Only 6 opposed the war. No wonder, judgments like this are left to historians.

After the Second World War at the Nuremberg Tribunal, American prosecutors wanted to put the German media on trial for promoting Hitler's policies. State propagandists were condemned. More recently, hate radio was indicted by the Rwanda tribunal investigating the genocide there, while in the former Yugoslavia, Serbian and Croatian TV were criticized for inciting a war that divided that country, encouraging murderous ethnic cleansing.
.
The principle that media outlets can, for reasons of omission or commission, be held responsible for their role in inflaming conflicts and promoting jingoism, has been well established. Many remember William Randolf Hearst's famous yellow journalism dictum: "You give me the pictures, I will give you the war."

In February 2005, Italy hosted the citizens-initiated World Tribunal on Iraq, which put the media "on trial" for its role in selling of the Iraq War. It was of course not covered here. The Tribunal was modeled on an earlier initiative during the Vietnam War by the then-leading international intellectuals Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone du Bouvoir. As a young journalist, I covered their sessions in Stockholm in 1967. I saw it as an act of conscience.

Most of the U.S. media saw it as an exercise in propaganda. Most of the charges they made then about U.S. war crimes are largely corroborated by the historical record even though only a few were reported when they occurred. I still remember watching CBS correspondent Morley Safer filming a stand-up in Stockholm, denouncing the Tribunal. Decades later, his "60 Minutes" returned to the scene of the My-Lai massacre interviewing former US soldiers who charged the U.S. military with the very war crimes Safer had dismissed when it mattered.

Critics today believe the media has covered up war crimes in Iraq, minimized civilian casualties, downplayed the destruction of cities like Fallujah, and misreported the reasons for going to war and how it was conducted. And they are right.
.
Will any of the "enablers" in TV news, or our leading newspapers, face consequences for their actions? I am not just talking about high profile journalists but their editors, producers, executives and proprietors.

Unlikely.

Many pro-war reports won awards; many of those who engineered the propagandistic "coverage" were promoted. Their patriotically-correct 'all the war, all the time' approach raised ratings and revenues. Some were hailed as heroes, critics dismissed as zeros. Dick Cheney even dropped into a post-invasion media dinner to thank them for their service.

Media companies were happily co-opted as embeds while naysayers like Peter Arnett were banished. Later, many reporters were killed and wounded while trying to tell a story that has now largely disappeared from view.

Has there been any outbreak of conscience in newsrooms over the last five years or, more importantly, any commitment to cover Iraq in a less jingoistic manner? Not that I can see even though there is some occasionally "good" reporting. The title of the book by Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell sums it up: "So Wrong for So Long."

No wonder, many of the outlets abandoning journalism for "mili-tainment" lost viewers and credibility.

So thank you Scotty, whatever your motives, for reopening the debate. (And thank the indy media and a few gutsy websites and mainstreamers for telling the truth.)

Now it's time to consider potential remedies even if we lack the power to enforce them. Our main media outlets have already been convicted in the global court of public opinion.

News Dissector Danny Schechter made WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception in 2004, a film shown in 40 countries. (Wmdthefilm.com). He wrote two books on media complicity, Embedded (2003) and When News Lies (2006). His latest, PLUNDER is about the financial crisis.

Comments to [e-mail]

Comments

[bracken]

LOST viewers and LOST credibility? Not that I can see. Of course, there's the usual "it's just television, nobody believes it anyway" and "all politicians lie, that's nothing new" mantras that the anxious ignorant use like Sally Rand's feather fans, to cover up their plucked-pink suckerdom. All that's left is to crack an egg on their diffident heads. The TV will always be given another chance to flatter their vanities.

Flashy lights and busty babes and zippo music will get 'em every time. Be sure to include some in every newscast if you want to keep your ratings.

[Michale32086]

I'll ask again..

Does ANYONE advocate a government that is completely and 100% open with it's citizenry??

How long does anyone think such a government will last??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@oldpotsmuggler

You need but ask about my liberal bona fides..

Avoid any subject that doesn't touch on Law Enforcement, Self Defense, National Security or the sick joke that is "Human Caused" Climate Change and you'll discover that I am more liberal than you are..

Oh, add to the afore list, I am not a druggie either.. :D

Michale.....

[Necron99]

Well...we know you're a swinger, as you've implied that elsewhere--more power to ya.

& we know (or at least I strongly suspect) that you post under the names Morgan'sRifles, CaseyBabes, and probably others, as they tend to sign off in the same way & use the same ideosyncratic punctuation & wacky understanding of the facts.

I also personally know (though I can't prove, more the pity--I spent ten minutes looking but that's really all of my day I'll waste on you) that you are here to cause trouble--always--as I've seen you say that on what you thought was a "safe" conservative forum some time back (damn my drug addled mind for losing the link).

As liberals, you've excluded almost everything I care about in your list of things you're conservative on, so it leaves you standing on a pretty thin reed.

We know you like to play top of the post.

We know you play fast & loose with the truth both about the world & about yourself. We know you've got time to be here all day, every day.

I wish that I had time to addrsss your endless half truths & debunked talking points day in and day out--but I don't.

But I do wish you'd go away (& I know ya won't tiger--that's what makes you so cool). No, this is not OPC, this is yer old buddy Necron, and nobody else--I can live with one identity, why can't you?

[Michale32086]

"Well...we know you're a swinger, as you've implied that elsewhere--more power to ya."

Uggg. Such an old-fashioned and wholly inaccurate moniker. We prefer the term "swing lifestyle", but whatever. :D

"& we know (or at least I strongly suspect) that you post under the names Morgan'sRifles, CaseyBabes, and probably others, as they tend to sign off in the same way & use the same ideosyncratic punctuation & wacky understanding of the facts."

Sorry to burst your bubble there, sunshine. But I have no idea about ANY of those names you posted. I have only posted here on HuffPo as Michale & Michale32086. That's a fact.

"I also personally know (though I can't prove, more the pity--I spent ten minutes looking but that's really all of my day I'll waste on you) that you are here to cause trouble--always--as I've seen you say that on what you thought was a "safe" conservative forum some time back (damn my drug addled mind for losing the link)."

Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but you are quite wrong...

Two fer two...

It seems that all you "know" isn't really known at all, now is it??

Of course, if you could come up with some hard evidence to back up what you "know" you would be taken more seriously.

But you can't because it does not exist...

But, gee whiz. Thanx for playing.

Michale.....

[Clairvaux]

If a bomb drops in Iraq, and the MSM doesn't cover it, did people die or not?

Yes, the tree fell, and the people died, and the media are complicit.

[burnt]

Great post Danny.

McClellan would not have been able to publish this book without it first passing White House censors. That it contained mostly information supporting what most of us knew or suspected is an indication that he was being careful not to include anything that would impose a White House ban.

The book's importance is in what it suggests... that he undeniably had access to insider information, and that he was privy to more that he could not publish. He has already indicated his willingness to testify before Congressional committees where censorship would not be a problem. White House response has been that it may be within their power to prevent that testimony.

The weasel chorus that had been in planning for over a month, demonstrated by their attack-mode response, that they are worried about revelations that are much more damning than those in the book. I believe it's in our best interests to forego all this focus on "motivation" and really take advantage of the fact that Scott might be a valuable whistleblower who is willing to spill to Congress.

We need to put war criminals on trial. Some provisions for immunity from prosecution in exchange for real convictable evidence, is something we should expect... if reluctantly. I have a feeling there is more in the pipeline waiting for a turn of the spigot.

[rbenjamin]

Danny gets it. Pass the word to the rest of the MSM,

[Michale32086]

@silverball

Let me ask you this..

Are you advocating that your government should be completely and 100% open and inform the citizenry of everything they do??

Michale.....

[oldpotsmuggler]

Rich Lowry ("McClellan"s book as banal as his White House Performance", S.L. Trib 5-31-08) is okay with everyone that works for BUSHCO until one of them does a "tell all" and then he finally speaks up with his "true feelings". How about either nailing these folks at the time for their inadequacies, or admitting that he"s just another shill for the big oil/military industrial complex lobby masquerading as a presidential administration?

Michael: Is there a reason why you hailed McClellan as a hero up until he slimed your President? There were plenty of folks who saw him as deficient before that, but none on your side of the political spectrum.

Until now!

[Michale32086]

I don't recall hailing McClellan as anything, let alone a "hero".

Could you provide me with a link?

As to my "side of the political spectrum", I would put forth that you don't have clue one as to what constitutes my "side" of anything.

With one or two exceptions, I am probably the most liberal one here... And that's a fact.

Michale.....

[Durango]

The very best disinfecatant is sunshine.

90% of what the Government declares secret is to prevent embarrassment. Damn little is of ANY security necessity.

[Michale32086]

"90% of what the Government declares secret is to prevent embarrassment. Damn little is of ANY security necessity."

Please support that statement with some verifiable facts...

"The very best disinfecatant is sunshine."

You have never worked CT ops, have you??

'Sunshine' is the LAST thing that counter terrorist operations need..

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others..

Are you advocating that your government should be completely and 100% open and inform the citizenry of everything they do??

I have worked security, LEOs, military and CT ops for almost a quarter century. I have been in the USAF and the US Army and have been a military liaison to several mideast countries.

And I can assure you that "sunshine" is the LAST thing this country needs as far as it's counter terrorism operations goes. To do as you suggest would complete gut our capabilities.

What do you propose? Having UCs go before Congress and extoll the public as to exactly how they plan to eliminate terrorist scumbags???

Surely you jest...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

It's funny..

McClellan was called a liar of epic proportions..

Right up until the time that he started saying things that the Bush bashers wanted to hear..

Then, all of the sudden, he became their mighty savior and holy grail all rolled into one.

There's a word for that.

It's called "hypocrisy"....

Michale.....

[silverball]

hypocrisy...as in scotty, who after all these years decided to bare his conscious and be honest as opposed to regurgitating the bs....right?....otherwise you must like your government to be dishonest and LIE about what it is they are doing....right?....or don't you remember..."WE the people"...and not the bastards lying to us....right?.....

[rbenjamin]

Let's not get caught up arguing about the red herrings. McClellan was a hypocrite. All spokespeople are hypocrites after their first press conference. The H word is tattooed on their asses in case they ever dream of taking honest jobs. McClellan didn't reveal anything substantially new, but nobody who hasn't been in a coma for the last 7 years believes he's lying. The big NEWS STORY is that White House insiders feel they can jump ship without committing suicide. The President's Men are trashing Scotty as a lesson to potential imitators, but it's not likely to be effective. Perceptions about the probable Democratic win in '08 are likely driving the dynamic. Here is the Republican nightmare, the one that's hitting guys like Rove really hard. In it;s first 100 days the Obama administration will look into wrong doing by Duya & Co.. Plenty of dirt will be found, and the prosecutors will go to work, grilling the bottom feeders to get at those higher in the food chain. Little bits of evidence are probably shuffling out the door with White House employees as we speak. In times of trouble, cover your ass and make a deal. The Bushies understand this sort of power game all too well, but there isn't a lot they can do about it. Not with 30% public approval.

[Michale32086]

Good post...

But, as I said.. If McClellan is not lying in his new book, then you must accept his words that the Bush administration did not lie. Again, as you said, that's nothing new.. We all knew that after the three commissions (Two US Bi-Partisan and one British) stated the same thing.

It's that simple..

Michale....