Follow up on the Scott story

(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