No Shame, No Blame -- Media Refuse to Face Up to Role in Iraq Disaster

In the thousands of articles and television reports in recent days surrounding the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq -- and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. troops dead there -- nearly every important aspect was probed, and fingers were pointed: at Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer or Dick Cheney, at stubborn Republicans or weak-willed Democrats, and at many others. But conspicuously absent as a subject in the media analysis and reassessment were... the media.

It's as if the war had been planned, launched, and continued for more than half a decade with hardly any major media slips or tragic omissions. The media, with months to plan for the five-year commemoration, were ready to take stock of everything but themselves. By and large, when they did review their role, it was to showcase some of the undeniably terrific reporting, photography, and videography that have emerged from the war zone.

A frank assessment of the overall media performance, from the "run-up" to the "surge," was nearly non-existent. That's not only shameful and revealing -- it's a real missed opportunity, since there is so much to be learned from it by current and future generations of journalists.
Yes, the fateful media mistakes and misreporting of Iraqi WMD before the war has been covered in the past, although with few apologies. But how could this not be widely revisited at the five-year mark -- beyond PBS and NPR -- with 4,000 American dead and thousands wounded for life?

What about the removal of the vast majority of U.S. reporters from Iraq in the early days of the occupation, just when they were most needed to warn of the daily Coalition blunders and emerging insurgency? The media's role in falling victim to official propaganda in the
Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman cases? The delay in exposing the abuses at Abu Ghraib -- and attacks on civilians in Haditha and numerous other places?

The list goes on: Why did it take years to really focus on ill treatment of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans back here at home? To expose the rising suicide rates among soldiers in Iraq and returning vets? To assess the full trillion-dollar financial costs of the war, now a hot topic but
underplayed for so long? And what did editors, reporters, and producers learn from all of these significant oversights?

Why didn't the media fight harder the Pentagon's ban on showing coffins returning from Iraq? Why, for the most part, did they refuse to show dead or injured American soldiers from the war zone, thus preventing the public from absorbing the true human costs of the conflict? On reflection, what were the strengths and weaknesses of the much-ballyhooed "embedded" journalists program? Any second thoughts?

What about the reluctance of editorial pages and pundits to propose, even tentatively, a real change in course in Iraq, as month after month and then year after year passed? Almost four years went by before a leading newspaper called for the beginning of even a very slow, phased withdrawal. What do they think of that delay now? Why do the many columnists who were so wrong about the war fail to come clean about their mistakes?

And just in recent months: Why are there so few reporters covering the war now? Are budgetary excuses and blaming readers for not being very interested anymore really valid? Or do readers take their cues from the (increasingly disinterested) media?

I was grateful for one thing, at least. Nearly five years ago, when I was virtually the first to refer to Iraq, in print, as a coming "quagmire" -- it's one chapter in my new book on Iraq and the media -- I was widely ridiculed for making this patently absurd Vietnam reference. In his fifth anniversary review on March 16, John F. Burns, the famous New York Times war correspondent, used the phrase "Iraq quagmire" in passing, as a fact, not in quotes or as a claim by others. A fact.

As I have often indicated, there has been an ample amount of truly heroic journalism from the war zone and tough-minded probing into the causes and conduct of the war here at home. But the media's current failure to examine some of the questions above only adds to the black mark they have received for past miscues and errors in judgment related to this catastrophic war.

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq (Union Square Press, $11). It has been hailed by our own Arianna, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald, and others, and features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and foreword by Joe Galloway. He is editor of Editor & Publisher. He can be reached at: [e-mail]

Comments

[Mauimom]

And why have the media CONTINUED to "observe" the Pentagon's ban on showing coffins?

What would they "lose" if they defied the ban? Doesn't the American public deserve to see this "cost" of war, particularly during an election campaign?

[calirighty]

Ten years from now, long after McCain has been out of the presidency, you'll still be asking yourselves "how can we impeach Bush?"

[peterg76]

The media supported the interests of the oil monopolies, knowingly disseminated disinformation, and worked against the economic and security concerns of the US and the will of the people. What makes you think it was by mistake?

[noasalira]

HuffPost's Pick

I agree firmly with the commenters who identified the American public (as a whole) as responsible for the Iraq War. Despite how each person might publicly revise their initial stand, each person knows in their heart, if at all, how and how long they agreed with the war launched by this administration. At least they should be honest with themselves in private, if they aren't honest enough to admit their complicity.

Americans who couldn't find Iraq on a map, who knew nothing of the politics, the history, the culture - people who have a better grasp on American Idol winners than they do about world issues, gave resounding claps of support for the actions of this Administration. Many such people also bitterly and smugly criticized their fellow Americans for opposing the war, and they did so based only on ignorance and a drunken binge of propaganda. You cheer on the invasion of other countries then claim 'they hate us for our freedom.' Then when confronted with the failed results of this horrible action, you turn into a tide of complaint against the very administration you cheered on. Ever hear the old saying that people get the leaders they deserve?

Many of these people are now voting for Hillary Clinton as our next President.

Let me repeat, you get the leaders you deserve -- but some of us deserve better, we want CHANGE.

[JacobSinger]

Collectively, yes, but individually I refuse to accept that, as I had anti-war artwork in a juried show that opened the week of the invasion.

I talked until I was blue in the face trying to convince people around me that the whole idea was flawed, that oil was the crux of the matter, that Bush & the NeoCons were using 9/11 as an excuse, and the list goes on and on....

No, I don't have to play mind games with myself about this:

I opposed the war before it began, and I believed then as I believe now that Bush used Jeb, Katherine Harris and the SCOTUS to steal the election.

Public apathy and blood lust were indeed present in the equation, but never discount the fact that BushCo had a plan to do what they have done--and it is only in the collective aspect that we should accept responsibility...which really amounts to nothing more than a simple observation.

[CatfishJohn]

...you are completely correct Jacob. the Project for a New American Century, which gameplanned an invasion of iraq for oil was a product of the cheney-rumsfeld- kristol cabal and was openly presented to Clinton back in 1998!...they even lamented in writing about the fact that they needed a "Pearl Harbor event" ( which of course 9-11 turned out to be) to put it in motion...voila!...this neocon "Big Plan" was known to many before bush took the inauguration...yet, int he run up to war, the corporate media totally ignored its existence...and even today refuses to acknowledge the existence of this apriori neocon agenda for this pre-planned grim disaster...

[jhamm1]

Here, here, for I myself do not need to look inward on this issue as I vocally took part in several demonstrations against the impending war along with many others a full year before the invasion transpired, although I would agree with noasalira, in that many Hillary supporters have elected their accorded position in accordance with being able to relate to her shameless lack of introspection and propensity for blaming others rather than accept responsibility for her actions.

But what's especially infuriating about Hillary is the fact that she went further than the average democrat who supported Bush's war resolution by resorting to such extremities as ridiculing us demonstrators as overzealous and ignorant. This is why she, more than any other democrat, has earned the demonization she receives.

[JanSP1971]

Thank you for putting this into words all should be able to understand. We as a country can and must do better, we can and must make our voices heard. I along with my generation of baby boomers need to listen to the younger generation they are standing up and shouting ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! It's time to take our country back, it's time to show the world who we are and what freedom is really all about! We want, need and will have CHANGE!

[Stevealmi]

The time when newspapers were owned by families or responsible owners has passed. In Minnesota we have the Star Tribune owned by an investment group that has on their website an oil drilling platform, http://www.avistacap.com/. Why would I expect unbiased coverage of a conflict involving big oil. They do have their resident "angry democrat" on staff to try to paint the paper as liberal but it does not work as the issues are mundane and downright offensive when you think about what they should be angry about. The sad fact is that the older Minnesotan's depend on this rag for unbiased coverage of world events so argueing with my parents about our role in Iraq is pointless.

[Purple Girl]

The Iraq War is ALL You Are Blaming Them For?????
How about the Past Philosophy of bringing Truth (light) to Corruption???
How about using all that well Documented Evidence to HELP US prosecute Cheney, rumsfeld , Wolfie, W....and their Corp Sponsors for the Hundred Other Crimes they have committed against US- total disregard for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights...the Declaration of Independence which was the Backbone to this Countries founding. English Crown or Inc Logo, both enemies of the State

[certainot]

they couldn't have done it without the uncontested repetition of the talk radio monopoly to intimidate press and politicians and those speaking truth to power, make excuses for the bush crime family, and prechew the talking points and lies for the rest of the media first. they reach 50-70 mil with a coordinated unified message- the only medium that can.

[BlazingChalice]

Speaking of media culpability, did anyone see the CNN interview with John McCain recently? The young lady who conducted the interview was being schmoozed by McCain and you could see her blushing like a cock eyed teen ager with a crush on her teacher.

John McCain is getting a free ride in the media. Favorable press has increased his favorable ratings into the high 60s. However any chance they get to rub Senators Clinton and Obama's face in the mud they are all over it.

I guess free BBQs can buy you a lot of kind words.

[CatfishJohn]

The corporate Plutocracy's most effective tool is the increasingly Pravda -Like MSM. This will be exemplified in their turning their preferred ( read: pro plutocrat/conservative) candidate John Mccain into an airbrished jimmy stewart like persona all summer, with Cindy as donna Reed while they obfuscate his agenda which is little more than Buchco. III. catakyzing the copoeate meida's effectiveness of course is their willfull dumbing down of the populace as they define "important naitonal news" as such things as lindsey lohan's latest rehab, anna nicole smtihs sons autopsy and next months inevitable missing blond girl.... Metaphorically, its like katie couric comes out and cheerleads for war and rapiacious corporate profiteering as the true Americanism night after night ..."sis- boom- bah - supplicate yourself to the will of the plutocracy- rah- rah -rah! "

[StillAmused]

Hands down, the most disgraceful and unforgivable failure in the history of American journalism, both leading up to the invasion and owning up to that failure in its aftermath.

Just the fact that the press, as a group, treated George Bush like a serious, credible president from the git-go, daily glaring evidence notwithstanding, rivals 'The Emperor's New Clothes' as farce.

What a shameful slap in the faces of so many of their brethren (male, female and international) who courageously struggled to report the truth from Iraq -- and, in too many cases, lost their lives -- while the stateside mainstream press poseurs coddled and enabled a den of war criminals and greased the skids for hundreds of thousands of inexcusable deaths and injuries.

Foregiveness not an option.

[Lvm]

Truer words have not been spoken.

[PioneerKing]

The media does not have any shame in it's game. The media sold Americans a false bill of goods on Iraq. The media is selling Americans a false bill of goods on the republican presidential nominee.
The media has an opportunity to redeem its reputation by providing and honest portrayal of Sen. McCain, his record on Capitol Hill, his connection to lobbyists and his failure to grasp national security, foreign policy and economic issues.

[dadw5boys]

WHAT ?????
You really expect the reporters and the editors who assigned the reports to tell how the MEDIA OWNERS dictated what was to be reported and what was to be supressed????

Get real.

[Stanley]

There was a frontline pieve about the media screwing up things with "The Plame Affair" that did review alot of the bad journalism and how it happened leading up tto the war. It was good. PBS is got it going on.

[Gdebs]

It should have been obvious to the Congress, the media, and the public that Bush was starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq and therefore illegal and in violation of our membership in the United Nations. It is a war crime just like the German attack on Polamd in 1939. WMD do not justify pre-emptive attack. Many countries have WMD.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

The International Criminal Court at The Hague was meant specifically for people like our boy George. The cowardly "patriots" who supported this atrocity are beyond its reach but he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Yoo and Rice should all be sent there.

[jdm58]

Funny, I got the impression that our "media" was owned by conservative money machines (Belo, Murdoch, Disney, etc) that were interested in maintaining their status quo. Criticizing their commander would not be appropriate. What did his highness say after 9/11- "If you're not for us, you're against us". The media demonstrated their loyalty by falling in step behind their leader. Anyone in the MSM who spoke out against their leader was promptly "retired" or magically reappeared on cable news, or PBS. Even the voices of comedians were silenced- remember the Oscars after the invasion?