AlterNet: Our Media Have Been So Wrong for So Long

Our Media Have Been So Wrong for So Long

By Jayne Lyn Stahl, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2008.

In his new book, E&P editor Greg Mitchell offers a stinging indictment of the media's complicity with Washington's war-marketing machine.



So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, by Greg Mitchell, a collection of essays that date back from the lead-up to the Iraq war, in 2003, through this fall, is a compelling antidote to the cult of misinformation written by the editor of Editor & Publisher, a journal of the newspaper industry, and one of the oldest magazines in the country. The book features a preface by Bruce Springsteen, and foreword by Joseph L. Galloway.

As one who has been on the cutting edge of exposing the Bush administration's pre-emptive war on the media, Mitchell, the author of nine other nonfiction works, is among the first to broach, and critically analyze, the issue of "non-hostile combat deaths," as well as suggest the long term costs of this war not merely to our veterans, but to our national ethos.

We're treated to a first rate account not merely of a media complicit in the debacle that is Iraq, but one equally responsible for our continued presence in the region.

AlterNet recently caught up with Greg Mitchell to talk about his latest book...

Jayne Stahl: You quote one of your reporters writing that the "highest calling of journalism is not reporting. It's finding the story that would help prevent a war." Tell how this relates to your decision to publish an anthology of your essays about the Iraq war now.

Greg Mitchell: This is the first book to look at five full years in the life of the war, from the "run-up" to the "surge" debate last fall. But its aim is to serve as a warning and, in part, a lesson for future journalists. When I was back in j-school, which came just before Woodward and Bernstein emerged, we were taught that the first rule for reporters is to be "skeptical." Not necessarily critical or negative, but skeptical. This rule applies whether you are probing a local school board scandal, or the preparation for an invasion of another country.

You might be looking behind what a housing department staffer said, or maybe examining the facts as put forward by, say, a U.S. secretary of state before the United Nations. Same thing.

Of course, reporters and editors don't have it within their full power to "prevent" a war, but they can sure try to put all the facts out there so that those who are backing an attack at least have to face full public questioning and the wrath of the poll numbers, not to mention, confront their own conscience. I hope the book encourages more skepticism, at least.

Stahl: To paraphrase Daniel Ellsberg, who you interviewed (the very prescient piece appears early in your book), have the media learned the lessons of Iraq, or are we poised for another prefab invasion?

Mitchell: I've charted some improvement in the "skepticism" since the WMD and other Saddam threats turned up empty. Surely you would hope that many in the media would be outright embarrassed and vow not to let it happen again. Indeed, as each succeeding "crisis" has emerged, involving Iran or Syria or North Korea, for example, at least more in the media have raised questions, although not universally.

But there's still far too much "report the military or White House view and worry about the rest later" kind of reporting. And, as we saw after the Watergate/Vietnam era, the fervor for really hard-nosed, skeptical coverage can die quickly. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/84114/

Remember back when the press was using the "Wag the Dog" motif for every story on Clinton after Clinton had missiles launched at Osama? Why the hell didn't they pay attention to who Osama bin Laden was and what Al Qaeda was about? Why didn't they know who he was in 2001? They acted as if ObL dropped in from Mars. There was scarce mention when the Taliban were destroying the Buddhas in desert and why they were doing it. Most of the stories were carried in the back pages of newspapers. The press didn't care. They weren't interested in religious fanatics halfway across the world because the "story" was sex and the president.

If the press had actually done their jobs back in the 98 instead of covering a blow job they would have been trying to find out why the President was trying to go after him and why Osama was a threat. Instead we got non-stop giggles and innuendo from a stupid, gossipy press corps that chased down every story about every woman who claimed that she and Bill had sex while ignoring what was going on in the rest of the world.

If the press had been doing their jobs in 2001 they would have exposed all the comments that the Republicans made during the "Wag the Dog" period when the GOPbots were downplaying the importance of Osama, world events and their possible impact on America. The press has been the stooges of those they perceive as having power or the ability to help their own careers. Journalism has taken a backseat to ratings and nonsense.

Thanks for posting this. I want to read it later when I have a chance.

K&R