Posted on 08/14/2004 9:08:00 PM PDT by jwalburg
I have a clipping in my files dated January 13, 2003. It's from a British newspaper, the Guardian. Here's the headline: "With war looming, it is no good the American public looking to its newspapers for an independent voice. For the press have now become the president's men."
This morning (Thursday), The Washington Post ran a remarkable story on its front page, responding to months of charges like that one in the Guardian: charges that the Post and other media failed the public in covering the buildup to war in Iraq. The story, by media writer Howard Kurtz, says the coverage "in hindsight, looks strikingly one-sided at times." Last May, The New York Times did its own mea culpa. Its coverage, the story said, "was not as rigorous as it should have been."
The Post is the major paper in the nation's capital. Inevitably, as one of its editors said, it is "the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power." Before the war, it performed that role avidly. Fast and furious came the headlines: "Cheney Says Iraqi Strike Is Justified." "Bush Cites Urgent Iraqi Threat." "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare for War."
Kurtz notes some of the reasons for the journalistic march toward war: There was an intense focus on what the administration was doing. The technical details of intelligence and weapons of mass destruction make for tough reporting. When contrary stories DID run, they raised a ruckus. As a media observer, I'd add this: The American press was, generally speaking, exceedingly deferential in the wake of 9/11. And it was not alone. The media in part reflect what is going on around them, and there was precious little political debate going on.
These have been difficult times for our country. But whatever the tenor of the era, whatever the popularity ratings of the president, there are things the press should never forget. Skepticism is a patriotic responsibility of journalists. And the press must give voice not only to those in power but also to those who are NOT being heard. These are the failures that the Post –- and the Times before it –- have now acknowledged.
We shouldn't underestimate the importance of these acknowledgments. They signal a revolution in press accountability. Newspapers, like people, have always made mistakes. But they have rarely admitted the big ones. Of course, you can't help but wish that the light had dawned earlier. Even as I read my Post this morning, I was hearing reports on NPR of intense fighting in Iraq. "You're too late," I longed to say to my newspaper. But that would be wrong.
I don't know if I agree with Post editor Len Downie, who says it's a mistake to think that different coverage would have led to a different outcome. But I do know this: Accountability on the part of the press is a good and hopeful thing -– and even a brave one. When those in power, including the media, acknowledge their impact and admit their fallibility, we're all better off.
A slightly different version of this was prepared for commentary on NPR's "All Things Considered."
Someone actually thinks the Washington Post is favorable to republican administrations. I've seen it all now. My life is complete. I can rest in peace after I pick myself up from rolling on the floor laughing.
It was almost as if the media were trying to goad President Bush into going to war.
Geneva O. is a leftwing biased journalist.
I am not even reading most of her barf-alert material to bother to debunk it. Nowhere do they bother asking if 34 days straight of front-page Abu Graib stories was a bit much for the New York Times, but they have time to second guess themselves for being too hawkish pre war. gack.
Asking geneva if she is part of the biased liberal media is like asking a fish if it feels wet.
As far as 90% of the Western media is concerned, you never go to war against a country that is routinely firing missiles at your pilots because that would make too much sense. It would also involve defending Americans which the aforementioned 90% is 100% against.
Or, if you do go to war, you do it in a much more sensitive fashion.
In another year does that mean they will check for accountability in the reporting of the SwiftBoat Vets?
The press put out 10,000 pictures of Abu Ghraib, but not one frame of Saddam's Torture Tapes.
Why?
Because the Torture Tapes stills are 10,000 times worse than anything you've seen about Abu Ghraib ---and images drive the news.
My apologies. Clearly when I have suggested to the Washington Post that they had an unmistakable bias, I must have failed to note the subject of their bias was against Republicans, Conservatives, G.W., America, Christians and so on.
The WA POST, eager to review their pieces of journalism to ensure their integrity remain sound, attempted to find the subject of the bias on their own. Well, the effort is admirable but clearly they need to hire a tutor to help educate them on the definition of "bias" while instructing them in how to detect it in reporting.
There is no shame in admitting you need help WA POST. Well, maybe a little. All you need to do is admit you are Liberal. It's the first step towards recovery.
"With war looming, it is no good the American public looking to its newspapers for an independent voice. For the press have now become the president's men."
Don't worry: the shock wore off. They are back to being the "rigorous" investigational entities they once were.
Look at the due diligence applied to the Swiftboat Veteran for Truth/Kerry military record fraud story.
Dear Geneva was once the ombudsperson for the self-same Washington Post. I imagine she was asked to leave.
I suspect this because of the way she tended to respond to criticism. In an e-mail exchange, she once referred to me as "a racist, homophobic David Duke-type". I had merely questioned her defense of the paper's silence on the Jesse Dirkhising case (as opposed to the Matthew Sheppard case).
"Good grief!", thought I. For all she knows, I could be an advertiser -- and she's just gone out of her way to insult me.
My guess is she did this one too many times. And, eventually, insulted an advertiser...or a stockholder...or one of top management's family.
So, biased? Yep. And stupid, too.
LOL!
Do you actually have her hysterical response in *writing*??!?
please post it if you do... good example of media bias right there.
But, unfortunately, that computer suffered a "catastrophic failure" and is now a doorstop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.