Carpe Datum

Part of the Problem

I found a good article this morning about the media's role in the lead-up to the current war. The article wonders what happened to the (So-Called Liberal) Media's skepticism about the evidence for WMD in Iraq. After all, isn't it their role to question rather than to become the administration's mouthpiece?

The Bush administration has been taking heavy flak for its yet-unproved claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. In fixing blame for the way the public appears to have been sold a bill of goods, don't overlook the part played by the media. Instead of closely questioning the administration's case, newspaper editorialists basically nodded in agreement.

Take their immediate reaction to the administration's most comprehensive case about the Iraq threat -- Secretary of State Colin Powell's blow-by-blow report to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5. An examination of editorial comment on Powell's speech, in a mix of some 40 papers from all parts of the country, shows that while some were less convinced than others by Powell's attempt to link Saddam to terrorism, there was unanimity as to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction:

ïÝ"a massive array of evidence"
ïÝ"a powerful case"
ïÝ"a sober, factual case" ...

Journalists are supposed to be professional skeptics, but nowhere in the commentary was there a smidgen of skepticism about the quality of Powell's evidence. Powell cited almost no verifiable sources. Many of his assertions were unattributed. The speech had more than 40 vague references such as "human sources," "an eyewitness," "detainees," "an al Qaeda source," "a senior defector," "intelligence reports" and the like. ...

Some 80 percent of the editorials I examined were written the day Powell delivered his address and ran the next day, Feb. 6 -- no doubt because of the preference of many editorial page editors for editorials "up to the news." That makes for timely comment, but the downside of instant analysis is the scant time it leaves for careful reporting and reflection.

I learned in my many years of editorial writing to follow I.F. Stone's prudent advice to read texts and not to rush to judgment. None of these publications evidently realized, or noted, how Powell had embellished some facts, although that is readily apparent from a close reading of his text. If the first casualty of war is truth, the media will need to be a lot more skeptical and alert to minimize the toll on truth.

Skeptical of Bushco? The corporate media? Sorry, I don't see it happening. Was I skeptical at the time? You bet. But I didn't get mad enough to start blogging about it until a week or so later, when I started this blog. Not that Powell was the reason. Heh.