Firstly, there is a considerable difference between a media company and the government. The main job of government is to protect its citizens. And while a government should not lie to the people, even in a democracy it invariably keeps information from its citizens for security purposes. We accept that this is required.
The news media developed as a way of getting information to the people, about the actions of their government as well as other things going on. The media in the west has always questioned the statements of the government and their reputation rests on being fair and impartial, reporting the facts. There are, of course, the opinion pages, but it is usually clear where news (facts) end and Opinion begins. This is mostly true, but we all know that newspapers, for example, have a certain editorial slant, such as the Toronto Star, which has a leftward lean to it. Everyone accepts an editorial slant, but this should not carry over to news.
As for the Iraq WMD question, I would agree that the media did not dig enough and do its job. However, I am not sure how much you can blame them, as they lack certain resources that are available to the security organs of the state to determine the hostile capabilities of foreign countries. I am not convinced that the US President lied about WMD in Iraq. It seems obvious the US was wrong about Iraq having WMD, but not finding something does not mean it is not there. However, I will admit that it is unlikely WMD's are in the country and the US is unable to find them. As for making a mistake, believing there were weapons when there were none, here are a few points that support that conclusion:
Saddam kicked out the inspectors. Why would he do this if he had nothing to hide?
He clearly did not cooperate fully with the inspectors, and he tried to hinder them. (See above)
He had used WMD on Iraqis in the past (the Kurds) and during the Iran-Iraq war. It was not far fetched to think he might have some of those squirreled away.
The countries which were against the war, such as France, Germany and Russia, did not question that he had these weapons, likely because they had sold him the technology to build them ( to be fair, so did the US, to a lesser extent). They could have directly questioned Powell's assertions, but did not.
Most of the above would be considered circumstansial evidence in a court of law, but this is not court. We now know that the US was wrong, or at least cannot prove it was right, which is different. However, I personally believe that Saddam should have been take out anyway, and it was a mistake for the Bush Administration to use the WMD reason, when there were many others. Since the 1991 Gulf War did not really end, the US could have attacked again simply because Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire (ie inspectors, etc).
We in the west did not understand Saddam well enough. It is my opinion that he sent signals that he had WMD to maintain his credibility in the Arab world, even though he could have stopped the US invasion cold by opening up to inspectors in a timely fashion. However, he could not do this, for then he would have been seen as weak. Maintaining the "tough guy" image was more important than the risk of losing his position.
Back to the media. There are two types of sins: Sins of Omission and Sins of Commission. A sin of omission is when you failed to do something you were supposed to do. This is the type of mistake the media made regarding Iraq, but it has to be willful, which we have no proof of. As Ron mentioned, the US media is notoriously liberal, so it is hard to believe they would not hold Bush's feet to the fire if they had any info on WMD. Anything is possible, but that scenario is just not probable to me. I hesitate to blame the media on Iraq, as it is difficult to get this kind of information by the way they are set up. The media is not the CIA. Also, it is difficult to prove a negative.
As for a sin of commission, this is when you do something you were not supposed to do. This is what Rather did. He knew the documents were forged, but used them anyway. "But Marcel" you say, "Dan says he was fooled, tricked, its not his fault. His only crime is being duped". Let's examine the facts:
The documents which purport to prove Bush did not satisfactorily complete his National Guard service were supplied by Burkett, who is well know to have an axe to grind with the Bush family. This should be enough to subject his assertions to extra scrutiny.
CBS made initial claims that they were happy with the chain of evidence, yet they never saw the original documents.
They "authentication shopped", showing different documents to different experts. Why not show all the docs to your experts, so they could compare and you could get the most accurate information?
Their experts told them the docs were probably false and they should not use them in their story. Yet they did. Why?
They did not present any contrary evidence, such as the fact that both the wife and son of Killian, who supposedly wrote the documents, believed them to be false. News should show both sides of the story. Why was this not in the report?
Anyone with any military background would be suspicious of the writing style of the memos. The military does write memos to cover its ass (CYA) but we don't call them that.
CBS went with 4 of the 6 documents, because the other 2 did not pass the smell test. Yet they made no mention of this in their report. If their piece on Bush was news and not opinion, they should have presented contrary evidence, in the interest of fairness.
Within a few hours of the docs being released to the public, some guy in his pajamas (well done lgf) made uncanny reproductions of the documents by simply typing them out on the default setting of Microsoft Word. How could CBS not see that the docs were false with all their money and resources?
Therefore, it seems clear to me that this story did not meet journalistic standards. Yet CBS still went with it. Considering the fact that this story made potentially damaging allegations about a sitting President during and election year, you would think Rather and Co would want to be extra careful to get the story correct. Yet they seemed to be extra sloppy. I can only conclude that Dan Rather willfully ignored serious questions about this story. He crossed the line and reported his opinion as news. For this he deserves the tarnish his reputation is getting, and, in my opinion, should be fired.
No comments:
Post a Comment