(Photo: CBS News)
Scott McClellan's "war collaborators"   in the corporate media. Referred to by McClellan in his new memoir, "What   Happened," as "deferential, complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's   war propaganda.

  No sooner had Bush's ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar. I'm not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer. I'm talking about McClellan's other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media. The people McClellan refers to in his book as "deferential, complicit enablers" of Bush administration war propaganda. ( I put the rest of the article on anoter page, so click the continue reading ..)

One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old    myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD (weapons of mass destruction) claims at   the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than   a Reverend Wright clip on Fox News.

    Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost   fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about preinvasion coverage, saying   days ago, "I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American   journalism." She spoke of "pressure" from corporate management,   not just Team Bush, to "really squash any dissent." Then a co-host   of NBC "Today," she says network brass criticized her for challenging   the administration.

    NBC execs apparently didn't complain when - two weeks into the invasion - Couric   thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, "And I just want   you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"

    This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those   who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having   to squirm over their role in sending other parents' kids into Iraq. I say "other   parents' kids" because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with   in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.

    Given how TV networks danced to the White House tune sung by the Roves and   Fleischers and McClellans in the first years of W's reign, it's fitting that   it took the words of a longtime Bush insider to force their self-examination   over Iraq. Top media figures had shunned years of    well-documented criticism of their Iraq failure as religiously as they shunned   war critics in 2003.

    Speaking of religious, it wasn't until two days ago that retired NBC warhorse   Tom Brokaw was able to admit on-air that Bush's push toward invasion was "more   theology than anything else." On day one of the war, it was anchor Brokaw   who turned to an Admiral and declared, "One of the things that we don't   want to do is destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we're   going to own that country."

    Asked this week about the charge that media transmitted war propaganda, Brokaw   blamed the White House and its "unbelievable ability to control the flow   of information at any time, but especially during the time that they're preparing   to go to war." This is an old canard: The worst censors prewar were not   governments, but major outlets that chose to exclude and smear dissenting experts.

    Wolf Blitzer, whose persona on CNN is that of a carnival barker, defended his   network's coverage: "I think we were pretty strong. But certainly, with   hindsight, we could have done an even better job." Coverage might have   been better if CNN news chief Eason Jordan hadn't gotten a Pentagon "thumbs-up"   on the retired generals they featured. Or if Jordan hadn't gone on the air to   dismiss a dissenting WMD expert: "Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior   has really bewildered a lot of people.... US officials no longer give Scott   Ritter much credibility."

    ABC anchor Charlie Gibson, the closest thing to a Fox News anchor at a big   three network, took offense at McClellan: "I think the media did a pretty   good job." He claimed "there was a lot of skepticism raised"   about Colin Powell's prewar UN speech. Media critic Glenn Greenwald called Gibson's   claim "one of the falsest statements ever uttered on TV" - and made   his point using Gibson's    unskeptical Powell coverage at the time.

    In February 2003, there was huge mainstream media skepticism about Powell's   UN speech ... overseas. But US TV networks banished antiwar perspectives in   the crucial two weeks surrounding that error-filled speech. FAIR    studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts:   Less than 1 percent - 3 out of 393 sources - were antiwar. Only 6 percent were   skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted   more time for diplomacy and inspections.

    I worked 10-hour days inside MSNBC's newsroom during this period as senior   producer of Phil Donahue's primetime show (canceled three weeks before the war   while the network's most-watched program). Trust me: too much skepticism over   war claims was a punishable offense. I and all other Donahue producers were   repeatedly ordered by top management to book panels that favored the pro-invasion   side. I watched a fellow producer get chewed out for booking a 50-50 show.

    At MSNBC, I heard Scott Ritter smeared - on-air and off - as a paid mouthpiece   of Saddam Hussein. After we had war skeptic and former US Attorney General Ramsey   Clark on the show, we learned he was on some sort of network blacklist.

    When MSNBC terminated Donahue, it was expected we'd be replaced by a nightly   show hosted by Jesse Ventura. But that show never really launched. Ventura says   it was because he, like Donahue, opposed the Iraq invasion; he was paid millions   for not appearing. Another MSNBC star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then   lost her job after criticizing the first weeks of "very sanitized"   war coverage. With every muzzling, self-censorship tended to proliferate.

    I'm no defender of Scott McClellan. Some may say he has blood on his hands   - and that he hasn't earned any kind of redemption.

    But, as someone who still burns with anger over what I witnessed inside TV   news during that crucial historical moment, I'm trying my best to enjoy this   falling out among thieves and liars.

»

Comments