By Gilbert Cranberg
gilcranberg@yahoo.com

As the war in Iraq nears its fourth anniversary, and with no end in sight, Americans are owed explanations. The Senate Intelligence Committee has promised a report on whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence to justify the war against Iraq.  An explanation is due also for how the U.S. press helped pave the way for war. An independent and thorough inquiry of pre-war press coverage would be a public service. Not least of the beneficiaries would be the press itself, which could be helped to understand its behavior and avoid a replay.

Better a study by outsiders than by insiders. Besides, journalism groups show no appetite for self-examination. Nor would a study by the press about the press have credibility. Now and then a news organization has published a mea culpa about its Iraq coverage, but isolated admissions of error are no substitute for comprehensive study.

The fundamental question: Why did the press as a whole fail to question sufficiently the administration’s case for war?

More specifically:

Q. Why did the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau’s “against-the grain reporting” during the build-up to war receive such “disappointing play,” in the words of its former bureau chief?

Q. Why did the press generally fail to pay more attention to the bureau’s ground-breaking coverage?

Q. Why, on the eve of war, did the Washington Post’s executive editor reject a story by Walter Pincus, its experienced and knowledgeable national security reporter, that questioned administration claims of hidden Iraqi weapons and why, when the editor reconsidered, the story ran  on Page 17?

Q. Why did the Post, to the “dismay” of the paper’s ombudsman, bury in the back pages or miss stories that challenged the administration’s version of events? Or, as Pincus complained, why did Post editors go “through a whole phase in which they didn’t put things on the front page that would make a difference” while, from August 2002 to the start of the war in March 2003, did the Post, according to its press critic, Howard Kurtz, publish “more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq”?

Q. Why did Michael Massing’s critique of Iraq-war coverage, in the New York Review of Books, conclude that “The Post was not alone. The nearer the war drew, and the more determined the administration seemed to wage it, the less editors were willing to ask tough questions. The occasional critical stories that did appear were…tucked well out of sight.”

Q. Why did the New York Times and others parrot administration claims about Iraq’s acquisition of aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons when independent experts were readily available to debunk the claims?

Q. Why did the Times’s Thomas E. Friedman and other foreign affairs specialists, who should have known better, join the “let’s-go-to-war” chorus?

Q. Why was a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace accusing the administration of misusing intelligence by misrepresenting and distorting it given two paragraphs in the Times and 700 words in the Post (but deep inside), with neither story citing the report’s reference to distorted and misrepresented intelligence?

Q. Why did Colin Powell’s pivotal presentation to the United Nations receive immediate and overwhelming press approval despite its evident weaknesses and even fabrications?

Q. Why did the British press, unlike its American counterpart, critically dissect the speech and regard it with scorn?

Q. Why did the Associated Press wait six months, when the body count began to rise, to distribute a major piece by AP’s Charles Hanley challenging Powell’s evidence and why did Hanley say how frustrating it had been until then to break through the self-censorship imposed by his editors on negative news about Iraq?

Now is an opportune time for behavioral experts to study these and related aspects of Iraq war coverage while memories are fresh and the actors are readily available. A team of social scientists needs to be convened to design a study and probe the gate-keepers who determined what Americans were told about the lead-up to the Iraq war.

The shortcomings of Iraq coverage were not an aberration. Similar failure is a recurrent problem in times of national stress. The press was shamefully silent, for instance, when American citizens were removed from their homes and incarcerated solely because of their ancestry during World War II. Many in the press were cowed during McCarthyism’s heyday in the 1950s. Nor did the press dispute the case for the fact-challenged Gulf of Tonkin resolution that led to a greatly enlarged Vietnam war.

The press response to the build-up to the Iraq war simply is the latest manifestation of an underlying and ongoing reluctance to dissent from authority and prevailing opinion when emotions run high, especially on matters of war and peace, when the country most needs a questioning, vigorous press.

Foundations that invested in research into how and why the press behaved as it did on Iraq would make a profoundly important contribution.

Gilbert Cranberg is a former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register and Tribune. E-mail: gilcranberg@yahoo.com

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Sponsor, niemanwatchdog.org Posted by Murrey Marder - Sponsor, Nieman Watchdog Project 02/07/2007, 05:33 PM As one whose reporting experience suffered through almost all the examples you admirably summarized, I would add this challenging goal: Seize the crisis/opportunity as requiring nothing less than adapting the crippled culture of American journalism to the towering demands for reliable information in the 21st century. We have profound problems which we cannot surmount until the public --and the press itself--understands the proper role of the press in the American system. Murrey Marder

Posted by Claire Fairchild - 02/07/2007, 10:26 PM From the very beginning of this war, a minority of people were villanized for asking questions on the subject. We were called "unpatriotic", treasoners, etc. It's no wonder most people began to back down. Media has to develop a backbone! Thank you for a wonderful article.

Still on the mark... Posted by Paul Borzo - 02/08/2007, 03:07 PM After many years of editorial comment, Mr. Cranberg is still right on the mark. The press has itself been "soldiering" or shirking their sacred responsibility of digging up the facts and presenting them in a clear and complete manner. Is the Fourth Estate bowing to political pressure or is it becoming complacent... at least some enterprising Web bloggers are taking on some of their responsibility, but that does not speak well for the institution we call freedom of press. Bravo, Mr. Cranberg, and I hope some forthright organization takes on your challenge, so that at least we can learn from mistakes made.

The Friedman Mystery Posted by Joe Paone - Reader 02/08/2007, 03:24 PM "Why did...Friedman and other foreign affairs specialists, who should have known better, join the 'let’s-go-to-war' chorus?" Our panel of objective jurors will first have to decide which members of the chorus are worthy of scrutiny, that is which number of them were able enough in their specialty as to have reliably "known better." Plainly, some would not meet this base-line and can be put aside as not warranting further review. But when the jurors come to Friedman, what will they do to account for his loud aping of the chorus? If only his thinking were on record throughout the whole affair. If only he had explained himself, supported his claims, somewhere in print. And if only he had possessed more backbone to do the hard thing and oppose the war at the New York Times, where such thinking was so outside the box. Where does the objective juror even begin to tackle such a mystery as this?

More Questions to Ask... Posted by Harry Shearer - 02/08/2007, 03:55 PM Why did Australian and British readers/listeners know the names of the three high-ranking intel officials in Australia, UK and US who publicly, before the war, said the supposed intel conclusions were belied by the actual intel, but American audiences did not? And why was npr equally gullible, credulous, and culpable in the pre-war period? (I think I know part of the answer to the latter, but it would be good if an independent source put it on the record)

Newsroom culture and war Posted by Jeffrey Dvorkin - Committee of Concerned Journalists 02/08/2007, 04:09 PM Two observations: one - newsrooms are increasingly unable and often unwilling to verify the information/assertions made by politicians, in part because resources are being stripped away to insure higher profit margins in news organizations. There was an anti-war movement before the war in Iraq began. But it was too amorphous and, more importantly for the Washington press corps, it did not seem to have a credible spokesperson in Congress. As a result, opposition was harder to identify and to report. Two: most reporters will admit (if prodded) that covering a war is considered a "better" and more coveted assignment in a newsroom. Did editors and reporters unconsciously hope for war? My sense was that many did, and some future pollsters and historians might want to look into this. Reporters and editors of course want to cover the most dramatic events. Digging into opposition thinking - especially after 9/11, as Gilbert Cranberg suggests, was just less dramatic and was discouraged in many news organizations in favor of the more mainstream and more televisual.

Posted by Phil Sheehan - 02/08/2007, 04:13 PM You ask good and necessary questions. Some of the anwers, alas, may be implicit in the questions: decision-makers (and in many instances reporters) were seduced, cowed, or bamboozled by the Administration. Still, an honest probe would be good for the profession and for the nation. Compare this idea with apparent Congressional refusal to examine what happened. "Let's move ahead and not look back" is the anthem, as if major felonies ought to be overlooked in the name of comity. That honest probe, if it were already under way, might help prevent a war with Iran.

Honor roll Posted by Jim Furlong - Retired editor and reporter. 02/08/2007, 09:56 PM One aspect of this necessary study should be creation of an honor roll of U.S. reporters and commentators who used their own eyes and ears and brains, and spoke the truth that eluded so many of their colleagues. A few starting suggestions, no doubt incomplete: Hersh, Krugman, Dowd, Herbert, Hanley and various Knight-Ridder and E&P staffers. These people also might have some interesting and chilling tales to tell about the pressure to conform that they had to resist.

Don't forget the "bloggers" Posted by Donna Middlehurst - 02/08/2007, 10:25 PM Please include in your study a section on the "bloggers" who've been so maligned by the likes of David Broder, but who, because they didn't have to compromise integrity for access, kept digging to bring out this story. Examine the excellent job the firedoglake blog is currently doing in covering the Libby trial. [For a startling contrast, focus on one day and compare their coverage with what the "Main Stream Media" puts out.] While Friedman's nonsensical "The World is Flat" remains atop the best seller list for weeks & months, a really valuable book like Marcy Wheeler's Anatomy of Deceit is only able to be published through the $5 & $10 contributions of fellow bloggers. For many of the reasons cited above re the inadequacies of the Washington Post, I cancelled my subscription -- after 28 years. I feel sad, but I just can't support an institution that has failed this country so badly.

Why the press failed in its pre-war reporting Posted by Tyrone Mason - 02/08/2007, 11:35 PM I believe the fourth estate (news organizations) under took the actions and reported the way they did because they were looking down the road of their own survival and understood the vindictiveness and vilification that would have been forth coming for those in office, so they wanted to be on the side of the apparent victor. I believe they cared about staying in business, and were ready to subject themselves to "conditions" being set upon them, believing what ever condition imposed would be temporary (lifted when a new administration took over) so they could simply out wait this time period. I believe the fourth estate took a long strategic business point of view. Though people will be willing to overlook many episodes and some will completely forget many stories, however, when a person or organization true measurement is taken (i.e. O.J. -- Enron), and it was a complete disservice, no public relations campaign can repair that lost of trust.

Democracies Survival Posted by Brian Bennett - 02/09/2007, 11:37 AM An independent press is critical for a democracy to survive. Of course, a government or business will use any means to expand their power and influence to shape public opinion, but it is the responsibility of the press to keep that expansion in check. As the Libby trial illustrates with Judy Miller, some journalists are willing to trade their integrity for further access to those in power. There will always be rouge journalists who misrepresent the truth to advance a particular agenda. It is the responsibility of the editorial board to ensure that what is being reported in their newspapers is thoroughly vetted for the truth. By failing in this responsibility, the boards of the Washington Post and New York Times did a disservice to the American citizens and damaged our democratic process.

Why Did the Press fail us? Posted by Marty Tomasino - 02/10/2007, 01:46 PM Easy . The bottom line directs the content. Media corporate heads and editorial boards....radio, TV, press... are more concerned with sales, sponsor approval and ratings than bringing the truth to the American public. The press has consistently been in lock step with this government and the public should hold them accountable.

A Theory on Why the Press Failed on Iraq. Posted by Wayne Avellanet - Author 02/13/2007, 10:39 AM I would like to posit the following theory on the deterioration of objectivity in the run up to the Iraq war. Chronologicially, the late 1990's heralded a major transition in mainstream media. Simply: we experienced Intenet mania. During this time 'success' came to be associated with viewership, or web 'hits', alone. We witnessed the AOL/Time Warner merger and others. The media's marketing research departments evaluated the viewership of key phrases - in internet fashion 'hits' - and then top management drove the coverage in that direction to gain what it though was customers. To validate this theory we would need to conduct a study of the internal business processes of these organizations during the critical time period leading up to the war. The theory is that Bush generated war rhetoric then the press 'experiemented' with different headlines. Whichever headlines got more web 'hits' became the story line. Recall also that Bush had very high popularity at that time.

Question All Quotes Posted by Alice Cherbonnier - Managing Editor, Baltimore Chronicle 02/14/2007, 11:42 AM One of the most serious problems among journalists is their propensity to publish direct quotes from politicians, pundits and "experts" without commenting on the veracity of the information. These "color quotes," which can easily be used to create false impressions or distort or ignore inconvenient facts, will stand as truth in the public's mind. If our "free press" is to survive and perform its intended role in our democracy, it needs to lead with its strong suit: straight delivery of confirmed facts and intelligent analysis based on same. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list