Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
Critics Say Coverage Helped Lead to War by Jim Rutenberg and Robin Toner 
Published on Saturday, March 22, 2003 by the New York Times Critics Say Coverage Helped Lead to War by Jim Rutenberg and Robin Toner Critics of the war against Iraq are not reserving their anger exclusively for President Bush. Some also blame the news media, asserting that they failed to challenge the administration aggressively enough as it made a shaky case for war. In an interview, Eric Alterman, a liberal media critic and author of "What Liberal Media?" (Basic Books, 2003) argued, "Support for this war is in part a reflection that the media has allowed the Bush administration to get away with misleading the American people." The strongest indictment of the press, many of these critics argue, are recent polls that suggest many Americans see Iraq as being responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The role of news organizations in wartime is routinely up for debate, with liberals and conservatives alike primed to see signs of bias, omission and too much or too little aggressive reporting and analysis. With the war only two days old, conservative critics have already complained that networks have over-emphasized what they called out-of-context photographs of wounded Iraqi civilians. In particular, they have accused Peter Jennings of ABC News of being overly critical of the administration. At the same time, many liberal critics assert that mainstream journalism failed in its duty to inform Americans about the debate leading up to the war. Experts say the news media's role was particularly important this time because Congress offered such a muted challenge until the final weeks of the buildup to war. With leading Democrats signing off on the use of military force last fall, these experts say, the burden fell more heavily on the news media to examine and analyze the administration's rationale for war. "Washington bureaus couldn't see the argument about the war as the political conflict they're always looking for," said Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. "It would have had to be put on the agenda by themselves - as something they cared about - which is something they are loathe to do." Many critics of mainstream news organizations, mostly on the left, say it was a challenge that much of the media failed to meet. They say reporters were not skeptical enough and did not adequately scrutinize the administration's contention of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The strongest indictment of the press, many of these critics argue, are recent polls that suggest many Americans see Iraq as being responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The Bush administration's assertion of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was an important part of its case for military action against Saddam Hussein, but that link was a matter of some dispute. Still, a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that nearly half of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. A Knight Ridder poll taken in early January showed that half said they believed at least some of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Iraqis. None were. This critique is not universal; conservative media critics say some journalists have shown too much skepticism toward the administration. "When the president does well and his polls go up these people say, `Obviously the press isn't doing a good enough job,"' said Timothy Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative monitor group. News executives said the mainstream media reported this story as well as it could and presented scores of penetrating reports that point out the weaknesses and strengths of the allied intelligence. "There could well be other reasons why people have made these connections," said Bill Wheatley, vice president of NBC News, "including the fact that they haven't been paying attention to the news coverage." But opponents of the war assert that if the news media had done a better job of highlighting flaws in the administration's case, President Bush might have been forced to give weapons inspectors more time to work in Iraq. Recent reports about unconfirmed or erroneous information that seeped into American and British intelligence dossiers have served as a rallying point for critics. For instance, these critics complained, most American media outlets paid little attention to a report this month that documentation British intelligence cited last year as evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium was forged. Some reporters based in the White House say it is hard to compete against an administration that sticks to its message and make its arguments at daily news briefings that are carried live on the major cable networks, often in their entirety. The most penetrating questions, they said, are met only with the answers the White House wants viewers to hear, a point of pride among administration officials. "The questions do get asked, but they don't get answered and that's what drives people nuts," said Bill Plante, a CBS News White House correspondent. "The president uses his public appearances very artfully to advance his message; he says the same thing over and over. What I'm not convinced of is whether that should change how we work." White House reporters also said they were left with the administration's assertions until investigative reporters could check them out, which takes time. But some reporters investigating claims against Iraq said they felt no compunction to poke holes in the administration's case because they did not find it to be so off base. Many reported being in the same position as the administration: confident that Mr. Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction but unable to definitively prove it. "There were some details in that briefing that were flawed," Christopher E. Isham, chief of investigative projects for ABC News, said of Mr. Powell's case at the United Nations. "But the overall thrust of that briefing was consistent with our reporting, so there may be a little bit of a tendency to cut him some slack." As for the administration's claims about a significant Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda, Mr. Isham said, "I don't think we've found the case to be quite as strong as some in the administration believe it to be - and we've done a number of reports indicating so." There has also been a shift in some quarters of the news industry in what its role should be. Executives at the most-watched cable news network, the Fox News Channel, have said they do not start from the general premise that the administration is wrong. John Moody, a senior vice president at Fox, said, "President Bush used intelligence information not necessarily available to everyone and made what is not a terribly large leap of logic: that terrorists and sponsors of terrorism might have a lot in common." David Greenberg, a historian, writer for Slate and author of "Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image," to be published this fall by W.W. Norton, argues that the news media did "a creditable job." But he added that American reporters have certain "cultural assumptions" not shared by much of the European press, which has been noticeably more skeptical of the administration's arguments. "A story line that no matter how suspicious we may be of the Bush administration's motives or competence doesn't challenge the fundamental assumption of underlying good intentions," he said. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |