by John McG
A while back, the Bill Moyers show ran a special on how the press missed the holes in the 
Administrations's WMD case against Iraq. During the latest pledge drive our PBS station re-ran it, and I happened to catch it (see the full transcript).
Aside from members of the Bush Administration, the major villains of the piece were the business managers of the various media outlets, as one might expect from Moyers and PBS. At MSNBC, Eric Sorenson insisted that Phil Donahue balance liberal guests with conservative guests, and Donahue was ultimately driven off the air. The media preferred to put on opinion commentary over original reporting.
But that's a bit too simple.
The problem is our culture's absolute allergy to sacrifice. Various journalists are interviewed talking about the "fear" that permeated newsrooms. Fear of what, exactly? The worst thing that Moyers showed was Bill O'Reilly talking about calling out "bad Americans." Was anybody fired for uncovering inconvenient information? Anybody beat up? Anybody thrown in jail?
Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, and he could probably do us all a favor and shut up once in a while. But if some reporters are cowed from doing their jobs - you know, like finding information to prevent a catastrophic mistake like the Iraq invasion - by the possibility that Bill O'Reilly will say nasty things about them, then it might be time for them to find a job more suited to their sensitivities, like kindergarten teacher.
Oddly, the one reporter who was willing to sacrifice and be thrown in jail for what was reported was another villain of the piece... Judy Miller! If we have one reporter willing to go to jail for her story, and another bunch cowering in fear, is it any wonder that the one who was willing to sacrifice was able to have greater influence?
Dan Rather was also prominently featured, as if he were martyred in the name of good jounalism. But remember, Dan Rather didn't go down for bravely proclaiming the truth or to prevent an action based on lies. He went down with a story in which evidence was fabricated to support a conclusion about what President Bush did 30 years ago.
Is it any wonder that people mistrust what the media reports? Is it any wonder that the media became sensitive to accusations that it was opposed to the Administration? If Rather is looking for someone to blame for a decline in objective reporting, he should probably start with a mirror.
The piece took the line that the Administration's case for war was based on lies, and that's also part of the problem. I do think the Administration was psychologically committed to invasion, and magnified evidence that supported that conclusion, and ignored evidence that pointed away from it.
That being the case, calling them "liars" is not an effective way to change the course of policy. It willl allow critics to look good in a retrospective PBS piece four years later when they're vindicated, but it will only cause their opposition to dig its heels in deeper.
Even if they were lying, the Administration had considerable support at the time, and people simply did not want to believe they were being led by a bunch of liars. Part of this was a desire for leadership after the trauma of 9/11 (for abusing this desire, the members of the Administration have much for which to atone). In opposing something like the invasion of Iraq, those opposed have a duty to make the case in such a way that it will be received by those who aren't already convinced. Equating Bush with Hitler wasn't going to do that. As I noted in my blog last month, Being right isn't enough.
The heroes of the piece are John Walcott, Jonathan Landay, and Warren Strobel, Knight-Ridder reporters who had the story right, but whose stories failed to gain attention because they weren't in the New York Times or Washington Post.
But are they really hereoes? Yeah, they got it right, but did they really stick their necks out to get the word out? Or were they content to have their story run on page A18 so they could come on a documentary like this and point to it as a model of their prescience?
A couple points in the piece's favor:
- It should have roused some suspicion that members of the Administration were on every Sunday morning talk show on the day a New York Times front page story touted the case against Saddam.
- I'd say there is a concern about independent factual reporting, and the substitution of opinions for journalism. (And I guess I'm part of the problem). There was a mountain of opinion built on what turned out to be a tiny amount of evidence. The problem is there was no evidence from any other sources.
It seems to me we had to have a perfect storm for this to happen:
- A public that was scared by 9/11, and desperately wanted to believe in leadership.
- Opposition that had been discredited by the 2000 election fight and opposition to Afghanistan.
- An Administration willing to exploit the situation.
Much has been made about how Bush squandered the national unity and international solidarity that was present after 9/11. But it's also true that his opposition did not make for a good home for those not buying into the "Bush lied" narrative.
There is a duty in being a "loyal opposition," and many of those opposed to the war failed that test. They can take consolation that they were right, but that is cold comfort since we went to war anyway.
John McG is a father and software engineer living in St. Louis, MO. He blogs at Man Bites Blog.