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: gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
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?
Ten years from now, long after McCain has been out of the presidency, you'll still be asking yourselves "how can we impeach Bush?"
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
...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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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! "
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.
Truer words have not been spoken.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, yes and no. Yes, the media can't decide elections, march in the streets, or drown politicians in mountains of protest letters and emails. But it can seek out and publish the truth. That was its original business plan, in theory. Now, not so much, unless it's The Truth about Brittney. Point taken.
No, the public is not omniscient or even very good at picking leaders. Like Blanche DuBois in "Streetcar Named Desire," the public has always been dependent on the kindness of strangers, specifically, the strange people that run for public office.
Sometimes we (the public) get lucky and get the right leader at the right time (Washington-Lincoln-FDR), but more often, we're not so lucky (Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush). It's all a crap shoot against house odds.
There's nothing in the immutable laws of history or physics that says the US will last forever. Cultures, societies, governments, all eventually fall from their own excesses and built in contradictions. It's only a question of when. The failure of the media is just one tiny piece of the puzzle.
Thank you for finally saying this. I was sickened in the run-up and the wow and thunder and felt as though no one was asking any questions with all of the flags on display. I love this country, but felt sorely lacking during that time any of the hard questioning, much less free speech, that makes me love it. Its hard to imagine how we all accepted a resolution that defied logic, reason, the U.N. Security Council and world opinon without so much as a low growl of disapproval from our watchdogs or our own voices. Arrogance or zeal, I know not which can explain it.
To this day, I still, for the life of me,. can't understand how the media continues to report the tragic loss of now 4000 lives, with no or but highly scarce reference to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost.
I am not of those who say automatically leave now and leave that people to the horror we've created for them. But I sick, to this day, as to how this could have been allowed by us, collectively, when it was a conscious decision being made to invade.
Blame George Bush if you like, but where were was the hue and cry when it was truly needed.
The media puts too much blame on itself and Bush. The majority of blame for this war lies squarely with the American people.
The American public might get a pass on being misled about WMD, but the public accepted all of the other dubious pre-war justifications Bush used: the war would be paid for by oil; Iraqis would welcome us; democracy would spread; etc.. The public unwisely believed these nonfactual _predictions_.
By 2004 we knew all about the war, it's mistaken justification, and its mishandled aftermath. Yet the public re-elected George Bush.
Even now continuation of the war, though disliked, is tacitly approved by the public. Opposition to the war may seem high, but it is broad not deep. McCain supports the war without suffereing in the polls. We might again elect a president who sees no mistake in Iraq and who will continue the occupation.
The public's opinions and choices are affected by the media. But we should not let absolve the public because of the media's flawed reporting. The fundamental information about the war was before the public and Bush's predictions could have been questioned. Yet the public permitted this war. Why? Is the wisdom of the public declining, or is the public still misinformed about Iraq?
When things go wrong in America, we tend to look for actors responsible; the media, the government, particular individuals, etc. Why do we never blame the public? Has the public become an inept decision maker? If so, why?
There is no denying that the US populace is partially responsible for not rising up and stopping this catastrophy, but this statement:
"The media puts too much blame on itself and Bush. The majority of blame for this war lies squarely with the American people."
Is so wrong-minded that it's hard for me to get my mind around--not what you're saying, but that you can be so misinformed or so willfully ignorant to what you're really promoting with that kind of statement.
The entire invasion of Iraq was contrived; there were no WMD, no ultimate plan to take democracy to the Iraqis, and no pressing need to depose Saddam--and we all know now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
So we had a president and cabinet who purposefully planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11 [pending a good excuse to do so], we had a corrupt and complacent congress that bent to the will of Bush, and we had a 4th Estate that fell into lockstep behind all of these corrupt forces, promoting an illegal, aggressive war action against a sovereign nation that had not attacked us--yet the primary responsibility for this falls to the US public?
We do indeed share the blame, but we are far from the most responsible party in this criminal travesty.
To understand why that is true, I would suggest you buy or rent the documentary "The Corporation":
http://www.thecorporation.com/
Totally agree. The blame for the mess in Iraq lies squarely with we the people.
I was thinking of this the other day while listening to an interview with the guy who wrote "X Saves the World." He was saying how Gen X rejected the street protests of their parents' generation in favor of simply being "ironic." We're now seeing how well that's working out.
The fact is, Bush/Cheney don't give a shit about the irony served up by smirky late-night TV comedians for our amusement. What would catch their attention, and the media's attention, would be tens of thousands of angry protesters taking to the streets, confronting cops and troops, putting their life and limb on the line. That's the only form of protest tyrants fear. It was true 2,000 years ago and it's true today.
It sickens me to hear smart-alecky revisionist history about how the protesters of the '60s really didn't change anything. Ask any biographer of LBJ, Nixon or Kissinger about how these guys feared the wrath of the mob, and how this fear profoundly changed the scale on which the U.S. waged war in the years between Vietnam and Iraq. The only thing that make Iraq possible is that the White House has correctly calculated that Americans today are too cowardly, lethargic, and self-centered to take to the streets in great numbers.
If you think there were fewer prostesters, then you are WRONG; there were MORE prostesters in the streets before the invasion of Iraq than during the entire Vietnam war.
If you think that BushCo merely "calculated" the ease in deceiving the populace, the you are WRONG.
If you think that our social structure, media reaction and government policies are the same concerning social unrest and the media's role in war coverage, then once again, you are WRONG.
We are part of the problem, but to a much lesser degree than you have proposed.
You are indulging in exactly what you accuse the public at large of doing...educate yourself, and then rethink the entire premise you've accepted, and realize that your reaction and perception are a product of manipulation:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
Don't give me a link to a four-year-old movie. And don't tell me what people did for a few days five years ago. Tell me where these protesters are today and I'll join them. I'm in Midtown Manhattan every day of the week, the media capital of the world, the perfect place for protesters to gather in opposition to the war, where 100,000 protesters came together for a single antiwar rally in 1967, as they did for several years in big cities across the country until the tide turned against the war and LBJ and Nixon had to give it up. If there were thousands of people in the streets angrily protesting the war today I'd know about it. I'd hear them from my window. WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS? At Starbucks, blogging ironically? Give me the date for the next mega-protest in the nation's most conspicuous city--I'll be there. I'm old and I don't duck billy clubs as fast as I used to, but I'll be there. Until then, go peddle your DVD elsewhere.
the media's job is to present events, not policy proposals, thus why they didn't recommend withdrawal earlier, though that's a complete lie because they did. I mean, isn't this media? Isn't this article completely ironic? There are plenty of ultra-liberal media outlets that did nothing but bash the war, and if you want to talk about mainstream media there was still coverage of protests, and you still have to blame the public for believing obvious lies. As soon as I heard that we might invade Iraq it seemed obvious to me that there was no connection to Bin Laden, and not only the public but many politicians did not come to this conclusion for years, so you can hardly blame the media.
Only idiots take what the mainstream media says as gospel and it's impossible to prove that media coverage defines public opinion and not vice versa (members of the media ARE members of the public and in many ways represent the same spectrum).
If you want to blame someone, blame people who write articles like this one, blame people who post comments like this one, blame people who think chanting in a protest does anything productive. The fact of the matter is there is no effective or immediate outlet for radical politics, and that the majority of Americans will never feel the way the far Left does.
No, only idiots take what politicians say as gospel and that's exactly what the MSM did and does. Not only is it the media's job to "present" events (why no flag-draped coffins?), it is the job of journalists to maintain healthy scepticism, investigate the truth of government,/ corporate claims and report those findings to the public in as objective a manor as is humanly possible. The corporate directors of the publicly-held media companies don't give a tinker's damn for that mission. They view their sole responsibility as delivering profits to increase shareholder value. If they percieve the public wants to put on lapel pins and wave the flag while brooking no criticism of the president, (witness the Dixie Chicks) that's exactly what we'll get. They are now strictly in the business of giving the public, not what it needs which is unvarnished truth, but what it wants--bread and circuses. I've worked in broadcasting for 30+ years, and, while it's a tiny bit better in newspapers, I can attest to the fact that the entire focus is on ratings (which translate to eyeballs to ad dollars generated) and if Brittney will deliver them, Brittany is what you'll see. About six months after "shock & awe," a prominent news consultant advised our top-ten station managment not to run too many stories about the war--people were "turned off" by the lack of progress.
I do not agree that there were mainstream media outlets covering protests. More to the point, I don't believe there were any protests. The event in NYC before the war was the only "protest" of any note, and that was sort of just a whimper before the bang. While I don't know whether it would have made a difference had there been protest, that is why I say the public allowed this to happen. I also believe the media allowed the public to allow this to happen. I can not explain the general willingness to "accept" wmd when the people responsible to account on that question were saying there were none. I still remember Colin Powell's speech with photographs of suspicious activity and reacting in disbelief and embarrassment when most folks were saying "see?" , there you go. After all Colin Powell is an honorable guy, so if he says so, it must be true. Its inexpicable to me to this day that the public AND the media who investigate and inform told the story and listened to its telling the way they did.
You are displaying gross ignorance in regards to protests, protesters, and their magnitude; there were more protests by more people against the invasion of Iraq in the US alone than all of the protests during the entire Vietnam war.
National reporting of protests may have been lacking, but there were protests all across the U.S. as well as world-wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#March_19.2C_2003
Many Americans have stopped thinking critically about anything except "What's in it for me?" which applies to all aspects of their lives, not just the crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's called "free riding," if it benefits them, great, they'll go along with it. If not, it's not worth thinking or doing anything about.
Carry on life as usual.
Why not go back to how Bush was installed ILLEGALLY by the Supreme Court?
Seems that this whole bit of national tragedy started when the media just said "Oh well.." to an illegitmate/illegal ruling by the Supreme Court that created an illegal administration.
If the media would have done it's job of informing the citizenry of what was really going on in the 2000 election debacle, I wonder if we would be in the circumstances we find ourselves in today.
Posted April 2, 2008 | 12:07 PM (EST)