Peter Beinart As Cautionary Tale In Journalism History

Just eight months ago, PBS's Bill Moyers aired perhaps the single most devastating indictment of the Washington press corps that I have ever seen. In his documentary, which looked at how the media cheered on President Bush's push for a war with Iraq, Moyers interviewed one of the key cheerleaders: then-New Republic editor Peter Beinart. Moyers asked Beinart "what made you present yourself as a Middle East expert" in the lead up to war? Beinart said that though he had never been to Iraq, he is "a political journalist." So Moyers naturally asked what kind of "political journalism" and reporting Beinart did to make sure his pro-war cheerleading was sound? Beinart's answer was the stuff of journalism infamy:

"Well, I was doing mostly, for a large part it was reading, reading the statements and the things that people said. I was not a beat reporter. I was editing a magazine and writing a column. So I was not doing a lot of primary reporting. But what I was doing was a lot of reading of other people's reporting and reading of what officials were saying."

This is the kind of quote that your journalism professor puts on the board during your freshman year as an example of all that is wrong with the reporting today. And you might think that after such an utterly humiliating admission, Beinart would change his ways, and do, ya know, real reporting the next time he opens his mouth about Iraq.

But you would be wrong.

In his latest Washington Post column, Beinart claims that "the war has receded" as a priority for Americans. As proof, he cites himself reading a live-blog from a New York Times reporter covering a Democratic presidential debate. I kid you not. Here is Beinart's lead "proving" his assertion that "the war has receded" as a priority:

Last month, Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times live-blogged the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. As the discussion bounced from subject to subject, she marked the topic and the time, then gave her thoughts. At 8:34 p.m., it was driver's licenses; 8:55, Pakistan; 9:57, the Supreme Court. By night's end she had 17 entries totaling almost 1,500 words. And she hadn't typed "Iraq" once.

As the Atlantic Monthly's Matt Yglesias says, "Basically, the evidence for Beinart's side is that media elites who control the debate questioning process don't want to talk about the war." In other words, just like he pushed America to war based on "reading the statements and the things that people said" and not actual reporting, he is trying to downplay the Iraq War as a major issue by simply reading the punditry of other Washington reporters, rather than looking at the actual facts.

It's no wonder why he has chosen to do this: The actual facts blow his entire thesis about the Iraq war "receding" to smithereens. As Editor & Publisher reports, "a new Gallup poll reveals that when 'asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote for president in next year's election, Americans by a wide margin say the war in Iraq, with more than one in three mentioning the war.'"

What's really offensive about Beinart's behavior is as much his desperate propagandizing about the war he helped push America into as his disregard for any semblance of intellectual honesty. This is not some casual error here - this is a person who was quite literally embarrassed on national television just a few months ago and is now employing exactly the behavior he originally was embarrassed for - as if journalistic integrity and ethics are just nuisances to be ignored. Most normal people would react to getting factually crushed on television by sitting back and thinking about how to avoid such egregiously irresponsible behavior in the future. Not folks in D.C. like Beinart - it's full-speed ahead for them.

Equally appalling (though, frankly, not shocking) is the fact that the Washington Post continues to publish him, and that for all his dishonesty, he has been rewarded with a perch at the Council on Foreign Relations. Apparently in Washington, helping push America into the worst foreign relations disaster in contemporary history and then continuing to lie about that disaster is a resume builder, rather than a blemish. Yes, you actually get a bigger platform and get paid more and get a cushier job in D.C. the more inaccurate and deliberately off the mark you are willing to be.

The Peter Beinart Story is not troubling because this one insignificant warmonger continues to live the good life in D.C. It is deeply disturbing for what it says about the sorry state of the media's role as a check and balance on power. The Peter Beinart story is, pound-for-pound, the saddest, sickest commentary of all on a Washington media culture whose insularity has totally divorced it from even the most basic tenets of journalism. And that's a tragedy for those of us outside of Washington, living in the reality-based community.

Cross-posted from Credo Action

Comments

[knosiswar]

'his disregard for any semblance of intellectual honesty'

You describe the 28% that believe our economy is doing well, you describe the 28% that still support BUSH, no semblance of intellectual honesty, and Im glad to see Dan Abrams calling out these intellectual dis-connects, and David, may Love bless you and keep you. You are doing the service that so many need. DOWN WITH NAFTA AND THE WTO.

[realpolitic]

Peter Beinart obviously has a very high opinion of himself and his own intellect. So high, in fact, that he could read a few articles and then declare that what America needs to do is invade Iraq. Of course, Iraqis will love us for it, the war will pay for itself, the price of oil would be cheaper, and there would be peace at last in Israel. Remember all these claims by Beinart and others?

The fact that Bill Moyers reduced his credibility to zero with a few simple questions showed Beinart's sweeping arrogance and naivity. Beinart was surprised someone would not consider him qualified to steer the country into a conflict in the Middle East after reading a few articles. It never occurred to Beinart to talk to regional experts and seek out experts on the history of the region and its present day tensions. Beinart saw a simple problem with an even simpler solution and really, isn't that the American way. Saddam was the problem, therefore the solution would be to remove Saddam.

The fact that Beinart is rewarded for his lack of effort and preachy assurances doesn't surprise me. In America today it is not so important to have an informed opinion which may entertain nuance. It is more important to have a big, bold prediction and be absolutely sure of your mindset. If Beinart was not hired by the Council of Foreign Relations, where hopefully he will not try to stir up any wars in his spare time, perhaps Fox News would have had a place for him alongside Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristal, and Fred Barnes. Those guys are hardly ever right either, but it doesn't seem to slow them down.

[ajax2]

David nice recap of the Peter Beinart tragedy. I too watched Bill Moyers questioning Peter's credentials on war and the Mid-East. I didn't expect him to change. Beinart had no idea what Bill was talking about. Moyers could have come right out and said, Peter you are unqualified to comment in these areas, and your methods for gathering information are seriously flawed, and Peter would have still looked dazed. Watching that interview with Moyers will leave one with no doubt that Beinart could come to a conclusion based on one reporters political blog. Beinart is the Peter Principle.

[michael098762001]

i'd say that this drop is statistically significant, however much we activists might not like it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/103132/Iraq-Economy-Healthcare-Immigration-Top-Vote-Issues.aspx
In the three times Gallup has asked the question this year, the war
in Iraq has consistently been the dominant issue in the public's eyes.
But the percentage mentioning the war has gradually declined from 42%
in April to 36% in the new poll.

[bobh]

The war will be back big-time the month American casualties go back to 60 or 70. I am sure the insurgents have just this in mind.

[Kane]

According to Peter Beinart's bio found at the Council on Foreign Relations:

Expertise: U.S. national security; domestic politics and foreign policy; foreign policy history; the media and foreign policy; nationalism; democracy and human rights; Congress; the presidency.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/12510/peter_beinart.html

[rudyspeaks]

Why is everyone so upset? Are you naive? This is what the 6 companies (who control 95% of everything you hear, read or see) pay them to do. It's not news, it's propaganda. The Ministry of Truth, oops, I mean, Minitru. If they didn't spin they'd be gone, unseen, unheard...they'd be you...and me

[Merlin7]

So what else is new? Almost all the talking heads and major news anchors on TV lined up to kiss Bush's butt during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Now, of course, they all talk as if they thought it was a bad idea all along.

Being a well-connected Washington insider means never having to say you're sorry -- regardless of how many thousands of people died partly because of your stupidity. Beinart and his like-minded counterparts will simply shuffle among many prestigious positions and their bad advice will continue unimpeded.

And look at the senior Bushies. Instead of being put on trial for their corruption and ineptitude, they are retiring to enjoy their ill-gotten gains and write their memoirs. Nothing ever really changes in D.C., except the scale of the corruption becomes more breath-taking every year.

[swift goat pet for truth]

"The Peter Beinart story is, pound-for-pound, the saddest, sickest commentary of all on a Washington media culture whose insularity has totally divorced it from even the most basic tenets of journalism."

HEY!
I thought that was the Joe Klein/Time story on FISA....

[oldpotsmuggler]

I'm reading elsewhere that David Brooks is making some of the same noises as this Beinart guy. "The wars over. Everyone has moved on. Don't even try to bring it in to the campaign because it will just backfire on you." I can imagine how crazy the talk radio hyenas are going over this.

I don't think that the left will ever get a message synchronized like this but there seems to be some real power in having nonsense repeated loudly and continuously.

[westwind]

I watched that Bill Moyers' Journal interview with Beinart, and by the end of it started to feel just a little sorry for him, as he appeared to be taking the lesson that was being served up to him, to heart. Well, more fool me.

It's cynical, lazy people like him, more than anyone else (besides Cheney, Bush, Kristol, Coulter, Limbaugh, Podhoretz, Hannity, Horowitz, Yoo, Savage...OK well, quite a few people more than him it turns out, but the principle is the same) that I'd give a lot to see shipped off to see some serious action in Iraq. And undergoing some of the torture they so blithely endorse.

[desmirl]

What an incredibly sad comment on the state of journalism in the USA today. We deserve better, but will never receive better, because of the way television, radio, and the newspapers currently operate. It's all about the advertising dollars and to heck with integrity.

[radiclib]

.
.
If only we could give the war whores their own rifles. Fly them to Iraq, give them each a parachute, and let them fight to establish deomcracy and rid the world of the Evil-Doers.

.
.
.