http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,953497,00.html
I enjoyed this article on the failure of the United States' military to find the "weapons of mass destruction" that our war's legitimacy hinged on, as well as the infighting that has followed. I also agree with the conclusions: that if we find nothing (and as I write, our inspectors are now headed home empty-handed) there's going to be some sort of diplomatic trouble (though given the Bush administration's attitude toward diplomacy, I don't know what can be done).
I am sorry to say that it is almost assured that this story will not make much of a splash in the newspapers or the television news here in the US. There is far too much jingo, far too much "rah-rah-rah," and far too little independent thinking going on in the US media.
Two weeks ago, when the head of the BBC expressed his shock and horror at the level to which US media, including such giants at the New York Times and the Washington Post, had sunk to, I thought to myself, "Well, now he knows how I and millions of others feel." Millions of anti-war protestors, the largest since Viet Nam: ignored, downplayed, ridiculed, or written off. Clear evidence that the administration and its friends are profiting directly from the war (Carlyle/Bush, Halliburton/ Cheney, Global Crossing/ Perle, Bechtel/ George Schultz): the allegations are either ignored or relegated to the furthest reaches of the back of the sports section. And now as the search for weapons becomes more and more of a failure, our media wants to pay less and less attention to Iraq. Why admit you made a mistake when you can just ignore the story and wait for it to go away?
I have written a number of writers from the Times (and to a lesser degree at the Washington Post, which cleverly and cowardly conceals the email addresses of thier writers) about their coverage in the hope that I will be proved wrong, but I doubt that this will happen. After all, this is the newspaper that decided Americans shouldn't see the pictures of Iraqi casualties; as the self-appointed arbiters of truth, there is little incentive for the Times to admit they were wrong. This is pandemic of course to American commentators: witness Tom Friedman, Bill Keller, and Frank Rich, as well as Richard Cohen and EJ Dionne at the Washington Post and a host of other "reluctant hawks" quietly and quickly backing away from their earlier support of the war without admitting they screwed up. It is the journalistic equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
For me, the greatest (and saddest) hypocrisy has been seeing the New York Times express their horrified surprise that Halliburton's contract is bigger than was initially reported and that they will be running the oilfields after all, followed by their shock that we're occupying the country. "Oh my word! It seems the Bush administration has pulled a fast one on us again! For shame!" This tells me either A) the New York Times thinks its readership is stupid; or B) that the New York Times reporting and editorial is stupid. Neither is a flattering reflection of the Times. Think about it:if an ordinary person like me can read the news and put two and two together, in effect saying "hmmm... the Bush administration has ties to all these oil companies and military/ industrial companies; we're the largest consumers of oil but have relatively small reserves; Iraq has very large reserves; the very companies that the administration is tied to are those that would financially benefit from an invasion of iraq, and are in fact lined up to profit from reconstruction. Hmm. I wonder if something is going on here?", but the reporters at New York Times/ Washington Post/ LA Times/ ad nauseum, with all their resources cannot, then there is something gravely wrong with the caliber of American journalism. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, our media forgot their role as questioner and has taken up a new role: regurgitator.
I enjoyed this article on the failure of the United States' military to find the "weapons of mass destruction" that our war's legitimacy hinged on, as well as the infighting that has followed. I also agree with the conclusions: that if we find nothing (and as I write, our inspectors are now headed home empty-handed) there's going to be some sort of diplomatic trouble (though given the Bush administration's attitude toward diplomacy, I don't know what can be done).
I am sorry to say that it is almost assured that this story will not make much of a splash in the newspapers or the television news here in the US. There is far too much jingo, far too much "rah-rah-rah," and far too little independent thinking going on in the US media.
Two weeks ago, when the head of the BBC expressed his shock and horror at the level to which US media, including such giants at the New York Times and the Washington Post, had sunk to, I thought to myself, "Well, now he knows how I and millions of others feel." Millions of anti-war protestors, the largest since Viet Nam: ignored, downplayed, ridiculed, or written off. Clear evidence that the administration and its friends are profiting directly from the war (Carlyle/Bush, Halliburton/ Cheney, Global Crossing/ Perle, Bechtel/ George Schultz): the allegations are either ignored or relegated to the furthest reaches of the back of the sports section. And now as the search for weapons becomes more and more of a failure, our media wants to pay less and less attention to Iraq. Why admit you made a mistake when you can just ignore the story and wait for it to go away?
I have written a number of writers from the Times (and to a lesser degree at the Washington Post, which cleverly and cowardly conceals the email addresses of thier writers) about their coverage in the hope that I will be proved wrong, but I doubt that this will happen. After all, this is the newspaper that decided Americans shouldn't see the pictures of Iraqi casualties; as the self-appointed arbiters of truth, there is little incentive for the Times to admit they were wrong. This is pandemic of course to American commentators: witness Tom Friedman, Bill Keller, and Frank Rich, as well as Richard Cohen and EJ Dionne at the Washington Post and a host of other "reluctant hawks" quietly and quickly backing away from their earlier support of the war without admitting they screwed up. It is the journalistic equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
For me, the greatest (and saddest) hypocrisy has been seeing the New York Times express their horrified surprise that Halliburton's contract is bigger than was initially reported and that they will be running the oilfields after all, followed by their shock that we're occupying the country. "Oh my word! It seems the Bush administration has pulled a fast one on us again! For shame!" This tells me either A) the New York Times thinks its readership is stupid; or B) that the New York Times reporting and editorial is stupid. Neither is a flattering reflection of the Times. Think about it:if an ordinary person like me can read the news and put two and two together, in effect saying "hmmm... the Bush administration has ties to all these oil companies and military/ industrial companies; we're the largest consumers of oil but have relatively small reserves; Iraq has very large reserves; the very companies that the administration is tied to are those that would financially benefit from an invasion of iraq, and are in fact lined up to profit from reconstruction. Hmm. I wonder if something is going on here?", but the reporters at New York Times/ Washington Post/ LA Times/ ad nauseum, with all their resources cannot, then there is something gravely wrong with the caliber of American journalism. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, our media forgot their role as questioner and has taken up a new role: regurgitator.
<< Home