The Non-Debate on the War(Media Bias)

The Washington Times ^ | August 25, 2005 | Terry Michael

[kellynla]

"Teach your interns the role of journalists is to question power, not propagate it." That advice arrived recently from retired New York Times columnist Tom Wicker. While Mr. Wicker's words are important for my journalism students, they're a timely reminder for the Baby Boom leaders of America's newsrooms — who should have learned more than they did in the '60s, when the best and the brightest gave us Vietnam. The most influential interpreters of our public affairs are accepting, rather than expanding, a noose-tight frame the Washington political culture is enforcing to limit permissible discourse on the war in Iraq. "The worst, the most corrupting of lies, are problems poorly stated," Georges Bernanos wrote decades ago — an elegant way of saying, those who twist the terms of a debate skew its outcome. Look at almost any major daily op-ed page, watch the Sunday shows or listen to nightly cable-babble. See how seldom you encounter voices against the war permitted to argue we should just end it, not try to mend it. Sure, there is coverage of protests, like the mother outside President Bush's ranch. There have been many pieces about unfound weapons of mass destruction. Columns were filled with findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, including the discovery of no operational link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. But those reports are the raw material of discourse, not the debate itself. In fact, the Crawford protest is the opposite of reasoned debate; it's a sideshow of verbal combatants yelling past each other. For average citizens to be presented with meaningful alternatives to the current war policy, we must have legitimate, fully engaged discourse, with intelligent voices coming to competing conclusions.

[kellynla]

"But how can mainstream journalism now be excused for quarantining stop-it-now voices from outside official Washington, after justification for the war has shifted from: 1) eliminating weapons of mass destruction, which didn't exist; 2) getting rid of a brutal dictator, who was a secularist thug, not an associate of Osama bin Laden; 3) spreading democracy, in a Hatfield-McCoy style tribal culture, heavily influenced by politicized religious fanatics whose world view never made it past the 8th century, let alone the Enlightenment, and who want theocracy, not liberty; 4) fighting Islamic terrorists, who need the United States in Iraq, not out, as their bete noir for recruiting more terrorists. Yes, all the arguments in the previous sentence have been heard through opinion channels of mainstream media — but almost never from anyone who suggests they add up to a case for bringing our troops home now. Instead, some senior senatorial windbag like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware alludes to them on "This Week" or "Meet the Press," but ends his disingenuous criticism of administration policy with the caveat: of course, we can't just leave".

[camle]

"Teach your interns the role of journalists is to question power, not propagate it."

had the media done that during the Clinton administration with the same zeal it has since Bush got elected, this statement would have some credibility. sinecc they didn't, and their questioning of power only happens on one side of the discussion, they not only propagate power, they become partisans themselves.

[kellynla]

Check out Taranto's column in the WSJ "Opinion Journal" about the NYT's interest in an Iraq failure.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007153

"Gail Collins & Co. are heavily invested in the idea that America shouldn't have liberated Iraq in the first place. Failure in Iraq--unlike in Afghanistan--would vindicate them, and that is why they are so eager to find signs of it. What really unsettles America's defeatists is the prospect of success."

[rhombus]

But how can mainstream journalism now be excused for quarantining stop-it-now voices from outside official Washington, after justification for the war has shifted from: 1) eliminating weapons of mass destruction, which didn't exist; 2) getting rid of a brutal dictator, who was a secularist thug, not an associate of Osama bin Laden; 3) spreading democracy, in a Hatfield-McCoy style tribal culture, heavily influenced by politicized religious fanatics whose world view never made it past the 8th century, let alone the Enlightenment, and who want theocracy, not liberty; 4) fighting Islamic terrorists, who need the United States in Iraq, not out, as their bete noir for recruiting more terrorists.

This is where the author left me. The shifting justification bumper sticker is repeated all the time and in fact taken now as fact by many in the media. Go back and read the speech that Bush made about the war. There was no shift. All of these things were mentioned. They were all debated. For leftists to now say the reasons shifted is simply wrong. Either that or they just weren't listening carefully but what's new about that?

[kellynla]

You have to realize that the Lefties aren't interested in facts.
They are only protesting war. And that's it!
Facts only get in their way. LOL

[rhombus]

You have to realize that the Lefties aren't interested in facts. They are only protesting war. And that's it! Facts only get in their way. LOL

Yes, I know. It is really amusing when they claim that certain issues have not been discussed... they have been discussed to death and they have lost the argument. So they keep bringing up the same old bumper stickers. In fact it was the lefties who INSISTED that we "WIN THE PEACE", That was their bumper sticker... and now that it's hard work they are all whining and complaining (along with plenty of Conservatives too) that it is costing too much, too hard or they trot out good old raicism and say things like Iraqis can't rule themselves, never have and never will.

[kellynla]

This MSM liberal bias goes all the way back to Walter Cronkite's days when every night SeeBS et al were reporting how badly American troops were doing in Viet Nam when in reality we NEVER LOST A MAJOR BATTLE DURING THE ENTIRE WAR!
But of course, was the American public ever told that on the evening news? noooooooooooooooo

[kellynla]

and of course, you can't "WIN THE PEACE" 'til you "WIN THE WAR"...funny how that works! LOL

[kevkrom]

You have to realize that the Lefties aren't interested in facts. They are only protesting war.

No, they aren't protesting war. They're protesting Bush. If it were Clinton's war, they'd be all in favor of it.

[kellynla]

"Clinton's war?"
that's an oxy..moron isn't it? LOL

[kevkrom]

"Clinton's war?" that's an oxy..moron isn't it?

Not at all. Where is the call from the "peace" crowd to bring the troops home from Bosnia -- they're still there, last I heard.

[MNJohnnie]

Teach your interns the role of journalists is to question power, not propagate it." That advice arrived recently from retired New York Times columnist Tom Wicker

Oh how SILLY of us! We thought Journalism was about REPORTING THE FACTS. Glad old Tommie was around to set us straight!

[weegee]

Saddam WAS trying to procure WMD. Whether he was successful or not is a lesser issue. Saddam was already akin to a convicted felon out on parole; he had obtained weapons he was prohibited from possessing after the 1991 Gulf War.

In the post-9/11 era, a state sponsor of global terrorism, like Saddam Hussein (who gave money to the families of suicide bombers), could not be left unchallenged. Terrorists would love to unleash a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack on the West.

He had repeatedly violated the UN resolutions. Would we permit a parole to dictate the conditions of surprise inspections and background checks on guns he may try to purchase? Would we dismiss attempts to hire a hitman if the perp is unsuccessful in actually finding someone to take the job?

We still don't know the origin of the anthrax attack on the United States and that was a small quantity. Is it likely that was all that was produced or is more dormant someplace?

[weegee]

The left says that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 (but we DID go to war against them in 9/11 and the peace had been long broken by Saddam). When did Bosnia attack the US?

The left says that Iraqis were not behind the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid or London bombings. The terrorists we fight in Iraq are not Iraqis. We fight these foreigners alongside Iraqis.

[Cowboy Bob]

Journalists should be required to pass an exam and get a license, just as doctors, lawyers, nurses and accountants (CPAs) are required to do.

[rhombus]

Would we permit a parole to dictate the conditions of surprise inspections and background checks on guns he may try to purchase? Would we dismiss attempts to hire a hitman if the perp is unsuccessful in actually finding

No way unless the ACLU ran things.... uh, never mind.

[rhombus]

Journalists should be required to pass an exam and get a license, just as doctors, lawyers, nurses and accountants (CPAs) are required to do.

No way. They'd love that so they could keep bloggers down. And then they'd police themselves like doctors, lawyers, etc.

[Mr. Silverback]

"Teach your interns the role of journalists is to question power, not propagate it."

The role of the journalist is to find out what happened. This sometimes involves questioning power, and sometimes involves assisting it, simply because the truth will help those who use power honestly and hurt those who abuse it.

Oh, and where was this advice during the Clinton Administration?

[Mr. Silverback]

No, they aren't protesting war. They're protesting Bush. If it were Clinton's war, they'd be all in favor of it.

Exactly. If this were Clinton's war and Cindy was outside one of his vacation spots saying "Come out and tell me the truth, tell me you my son died to distract the press from your adulterous affairs," the press would make her out as a loon and if a member of the GOP ever talked to her for two minutes they'd treat her like a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

[RightWingAtheist]

So much for the "reality-based community" The ideological delusions in this commentary are too much to enumerate.