Complicit Enablers: The Press and the War in Iraq
Scott McClellan has gotten enough press for his new memoir of his service as Press Secretary for President George W. Bush. I’m not going to bother dissecting all the issues he raises, but there is one that is particularly relevant. Among his “revelations,” he contends now that the White House press corps dropped the ball and did not raise its performance to the level demanded by circumstances in the months before war came to Iraq.
Specifically, he called the press, “complicit enablers” in the selling of the war to the American public.
Jessica Yellin, now of CNN, confirmed that:
The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that consistent with the the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval rating.
Even CBS anchor Katie Couric reported feeling pressure from corporate executives to “squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning. . . ” of the war.
Of course, little of this is really news. A variety of different outlets have reported on the poor performance of American journalists in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Perhaps most alarming was the press corps’ lack of skepticism. Assertion was reported as fact. Innuendo was repeated and amplified, and the Iraqi National Congress provided dubious sources to the New York Times where Judith Miller helped convince the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and war was the only option. For articles that demonstrate these shortcomings, see Bill Moyer’s site here.
In fact, very few Americans got it right in the lead-up to the war. Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, reporters for what was then Knight Ridder (now McClatchey), were two of them. During those critical months of 2002 and 2003, Landay and Strobel reported on disputes within the intelligence community over the Iraqi nuclear threat, divergent opinions in the administration over Iraq policy, and, as early as September 2001, the lack of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Landay and Strobel had a healthy skepticism of administration claims about Iraq’s alleged WMD programs. They followed that skepticism where it led them–to good reporting on important issues. Unlike so much of the other coverage at the time, the work of the team at Knight Ridder stands the test of time.
Nearly six years later, are members of the press still “complicit enablers?” Certainly, as the war has grown less popular, many journalists have asked more difficult questions. But I don’t want a “Fourth Estate” that blows with the prevailing wind. I want journalists, embued with a wise skepticism, that report facts and present researched stories, not repeat unchallenged assertions–regardless of who makes them.
