So far as I can make out, all of the major US news
media are consistently reporting on the Iraq War as if they are publicists
for the US government. I am not forwarding these reports (as below) with
the idea of generating discussion about the topics reported -- What is there
to say about liars and frauds that isn't too obvious to be worth saying?
-- but only with the idea that there is some obligation to promulgate public
corrections to compensate for the continuing failure of the American news
media to do what they are suppposed to be and claim to be doing, given what
seems to me to be good reason in the particular case for accepting what
the FAIR-L list is reporting about the failures in coverage.
This tendency on the part of the media can only be
expected to increase as the war continues and the military expands its powers
internally in the name of national security. It should be borne in mind
that the US government is continually extending its pseudo-wartime powers
of control over public communication, which includes use of the internet
itself, and there is a very real possibility that with the increasing globalization
of US government control over other governments as well as foreign commercial
operations -- which is clearly a part of the strategy of the so-called "war
on terror", as it becomes increasingly subsumed under the grander program
of establishing The New World Order -- the present independence of the internet
itself because of its international character may become more and more a
thing of the past. As that occurs, even such forums as this -- seemingly
remote from the center of public life -- may be seriously affected by this.
Hence I do not regard this as an intrusion on the proper business of this
list.
You may, of course, disagree that there is an obligation
to do this in a public venue of this sort, and you should feel free to say
so. I do want to stress, though, that I am not posting this with the aim of
diverting the list from its proper function for partisan political purposes.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons
Claims
> FAIR-L
> Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> Media analysis, critiques and activism
>
> ACTION ALERT:
> Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons Claims
>
> March 25, 2003
>
> A lack of skepticism toward official U.S. sources has already led
> prominent American journalists into embarrassing errors in their coverage
> of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly in relation to claims that
> proof had been found that Iraq possesses banned weapons.
>
> On March 20, the second day of the invasion, U.S. military sources
> initially described missiles launched by Iraq as "Scuds"-- the U.S.
name
> for a Soviet-made missile used by Iraq during the Gulf War. They exceed
> the range limits imposed on Iraqi weapons by the 1991 ceasefire agreement.
>
> While some reporters appropriately sourced the Scud reports to military
> officials, and cautioned their audience about the uncertainty of the
> identification, others rushed to report claims as facts. NBC's Matt
> Lauer's report was definitive: "We understand they have fired three
> missiles. One of those was a Scud missile. It was destroyed by a
Patriot
> missile battery as it headed toward Kuwait."
>
> His colleague Tim Russert was similarly certain, saying, "Because of
last
> night's activity, clearly the Iraqis are now trying to respond with
at
> least one Scud fired at the troops mapped on the border of Kuwait and
> Iraq." Fellow NBC anchor Brian Williams added, "We learned one Scud
had
> been intercepted, but two missiles had made it to Kuwaiti soil."
>
> On NPR that day, anchor Bob Edwards was equally sure about what happened:
> "Iraq this morning launched Scud missiles at Kuwait in retaliation
for the
> American strike on Baghdad a few hours earlier." Correspondent Mike
> Shuster helpfully pointed out that "these Scuds are banned under U.N.
> Security Council resolutions and have a range of up to 400 miles."
>
> ABC's Ted Koppel, "embedded" with an infantry division, reported
> matter-of-factly that "there were two Scud missiles that came in.
One was
> intercepted by a patriot missile." ABC anchor Derek McGinty had earlier
> explained that "there was a Scud attack, one Scud fired from Basra
into
> Kuwait. It was intercepted by an American patriot battery, and apparently
> knocked out of the sky. There is still no word exactly what was on
that
> Scud, whether or not there might have been any sort of unconventional
> weaponry onboard."
>
> Fox News Channel's William La Jeunesse was not only asserting that
a Scud
> had been launched, but was drawing conclusions about its significance:
> "Now, Iraq is not supposed to have Scuds because they have a range
of 175
> up to 400 miles. The limit by the U.N., of course, is like 95 miles.
So,
> we already know they have something they're not supposed to have."
>
> As the day went on, however, the Pentagon was less definitive about
what
> kind of missile Iraq was using, prompting some journalists to back
off the
> story. Associated Press reported on March 22 that "Maj. Gen. Stanley
> McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff,
> told a Pentagon news conference that the Iraqis have not fired any
Scuds
> and that U.S. forces searching airfields in the far western desert
of Iraq
> have uncovered no missiles or launchers."
>
> Even so, the next day, columnist Peter Bronson (Cincinnati Enquirer,
> 3/23/03) was still writing, "The Scuds he swore he did not have were
fired
> at Kuwait, and Iraq was launching lame denials while the craters still
> smoked." Apparently the corrections of the earlier, incorrect reports
had
> not reached even all of those whose job it is to follow the news.
>
> Reporters were also embarrassed on March 23 by an evaporating story
about
> a "chemical facility" near the town of Najaf, Iraq, that was touted
by
> U.S. military officials as a possible smoking gun to prove disputed
claims
> about Saddam Hussein possessing banned chemical weapons. While journalists
> were not typically as credulous of this claim as they were with the
Scud
> story, and generally remembered to attribute it to military sources,
> accounts still tended to be breathless and to extrapolate wildly from
an
> unconfirmed report.
>
> ABC's John McWethy promoted the story with this report: "Amidst all
the
> fighting, one important new discovery: U.S. officials say, up the road
> from Nasarijah, in a town called Najaf, they believe that they have
> captured a chemical weapons plant and perhaps more important, the
> commanding general of that facility. One U.S. official said he is
a
> potential 'gold mine' about the weapons Saddam Hussein says he doesn't
> have."
>
> NBC's Tom Brokaw described the story thusly: "Word tonight that U.S.
> forces may have found what U.N. inspectors spent months searching for,
a
> facility suspected to be a chemical weapons plant, uncovered by ground
> troops on the way north to Baghdad." NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim
> Miklaszewski added what seemed to be corroborating details: "This huge
> chemical complex... was constructed of sand-casted walls, in other
words,
> meant to camouflage its appearance to blend in with the desert. Once
> inside, the soldiers found huge amounts of chemicals, stored chemicals.
> They apparently found no chemical weapons themselves, and now military
> officials here at the Pentagon say they have yet to determine exactly
what
> these chemicals are or how they could have been used in weapons."
>
> Fox News Channel, less cautious than some of its competitors, treated
the
> report of a chemical weapons factory as fact in a series of onscreen
> banners like "Huge Chemical Weapons Factory Found in So. Iraq."
>
> Some print outlets also hyped the story the next day, as when the
> Philadelphia Daily News (10/24/03) reported it as the "biggest find
of the
> Iraq war" and "a reversal of fortune for American and British forces
at
> the end of the war's most discouraging day."
>
> As it turned out, however, the "discovery" seemed to be neither a big
find
> nor a reversal of fortune, but simply a false alarm, and TV reporters
> began changing their stories. The Dow Jones news service reported
> (3/24/03), "U.S. officials said Monday that no chemical weapons were
found
> at a suspected site at Najaf in central Iraq, U.S. television networks
> reported. NBC News reported from the Pentagon that no chemicals at
all
> were found at the site. CNN, also reporting from the Pentagon, said
> officials now believe the plant there was abandoned long ago by the
> Iraqis." On March 25, the New York Times reported that "suggestions
on
> Sunday that a chemical plant in Najaf might be a weapons site have
turned
> out to be false."
>
> U.S.-based journalists are generally quick to caution readers, when
> describing an allegation made by Iraq, that the information "could
not be
> independently confirmed." The fact is that information provided by
any
> government should be treated with skepticism; reporters might try
> extending their critical approach to the U.S. military's statements.
>