We’re living in an era when news coverage often involves plenty of
absurdity.
That’s the case with routine U.S. media spin about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, on the July 29 edition of NPR’s “All
Things Considered” program, host Robert Siegel and correspondent Vicky
O’Hara each recited scripts referring to a “security barrier” that
Israel’s government is building in the West Bank. The next day, many
news outlets -- including the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, New
York Times, Chicago Tribune and The Associated Press -- also used the
“security barrier” phrase without quotation marks, treating it as an
objective description rather than the Israeli government’s preferred
characterization.
Meanwhile, in contrast, a Washington Post article managed to be
more evenhanded. When the phrase “security fence” appeared, it was
inside a quotation from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. And the
Post story explained that part of the barrier “divides farmers from
their fields, or other Palestinians from their neighbors.” It takes
varied form as a 20-foot-tall concrete wall and fortified stretches of
razor wire, trenches and electronic fencing.
Overall, U.S. news media don’t talk straight about the fundamental
injustice of Israel’s 36-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Illegal and morally indefensible, the occupation will fuel more
killings on both sides until it ends completely.
From a media standpoint, the war on Iraq presents the
administration with much bigger problems. Since this summer began, the
Bush team has felt appreciable heat because of 16 words in the
president’s State of the Union speech: “The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa.” While journalists highlight the fact that Bush’s
statement was false, deeper and broader questions have been scarce.
At Bush’s news conference on July 30, a reporter asked: “Do you
take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?”
“I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course.
Absolutely,” Bush replied -- and immediately launched into boilerplate
rhetoric to justify the war. It was a classic politician’s
non-response. And, in the absence of strong media followup, the
meaningless answer rendered the question ineffectual. (A few decades
ago, the French leader Charles de Gaulle wryly alluded to such dynamics
when he began a press conference this way: “Gentlemen, I am ready for
the questions to my answers.”)
A whole lot more than 16 words should be under scrutiny. For
instance, eight days after the now-infamous State of the Union address,
Colin Powell spoke to the U.N. Security Council. Today, there is no
evidence that the gist of his boffo performance on Feb. 5 was anything
other than smoke and mirrors.
Powell fudged, exaggerated and concocted. He played fast and loose
with translations of phone intercepts to make them seem more
incriminating. And, as researchers at the media watch group FAIR (where
I’m an associate) have pointed out, “Powell relied heavily on the
disclosure of Iraq’s pre-war unconventional weapons programs by
defector Hussein Kamel, without noting that Kamel had also said that
all those weapons had been destroyed.” But the secretary of state wowed
U.S. journalists.
Many liberals were among the swooning pundits. In her Washington
Post column the morning after Powell spoke, Mary McGrory proclaimed
that “he persuaded me.” She wrote: “The cumulative effect was
stunning.” And McGrory, a seasoned and dovish political observer,
concluded: “I’m not ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced
me that it might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go,
there is reason.”
Also smitten was the editorial board of the most influential U.S.
newspaper leaning against the war. Hours after Powell finished his U.N.
snow job, the New York Times published an editorial with a mollified
tone -- declaring that he “presented the United Nations and a global
television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that
Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and
has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional
weapons he may have.”
By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times
claimed, President Bush “showed a wise concern for international
opinion.” And the paper rejoiced that “Mr. Powell’s presentation was
all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic
invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a
sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein’s regime.”
The prevailing media standards of sobriety and accuracy remain
dangerously low.
___________________________________
Norman Solomon is co-author of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t
Tell You.” For an excerpt and other information, go to:
www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target