Framing critical news reporting as pro-Saddam (3/28)

By Bryan Keefer

In the past few days, pundits Andrew Sullivan and Ann Coulter have pioneered a disingenuous attack on the media, suggesting that any reporting that is skeptical about or critical of American conduct or progress in the war in Iraq amounts to support for Saddam Hussein.

While Coulter and Sullivan focus on different targets (the New York Times and the British Broadcasting Company, respectively), their arguments are strikingly similar. Both invent dark pro-Saddam motivations and absurdly ascribe them to entire media institutions - Sullivan goes so far as to suggest that the BBC is trying to "make the war more bloody" - based upon a series of suspect assertions and leaps of logic. It's fine to criticize media outlets for being unreasonably critical of the US in their news reporting, but to attack them as enemy sympathizers in wartime for such coverage is extremely inflammatory.

In her column yesterday titled "The enemy within," Coulter attacks the New York Times' war coverage in her usual slashing and irrational style, employing a series of distortions and rhetorical comparisons between the Times and Iraq. A brief March 20 story [free abstract; full story requires payment] about the ambivalent reaction of some New Yorkers to the first wave of bombing leads her to complain that "The Times subscribes to Arab-style proclamations in defiance of the facts. Like Saddam Hussein, the truth for them has no meaning." She continues by pointing to a March 24 editorial that notes that intensified resistance in Iraq, characterizing it as suggesting that "We're losing this war! The Elite Republican Guard is assembling outside New York City!" and calling the paper the "Baghdad Times."

Her column concludes that "according to Saddam - and the Times - the invading forces are 'in real trouble.' The Times isn't afraid we'll do badly in Baghdad; it's afraid that we'll do well." This is a deep mischaracterization of a report on Saddam's March 24 speech. The article quotes Saddam as saying American and British forces are "in real trouble," but the article itself draws no such conclusion. More importantly, however, Coulter is suggesting that even the mildest skepticism about the war - or reporting that quotes Iraqi officials - is tantamount to support for the enemy.

In recent posts on his weblog, Andrew Sullivan has developed an even more sophisticated attack along the same lines, constructing a framework which suggests that media reports which are skeptical or critical of the conduct of the war are "objectively pro-Saddam."

In a post yesterday titled "Why the BBC matters," Sullivan suggests that BBC coverage of military and civilian casualties is an attempt to discredit the war. Therefore, he claims, the BBC is "a military player" that is "objectively pro-Saddam":

My harping on this theme is not simply media criticism. It's war analysis. Remember one of the key elements, we're finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people's morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They're a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam.

Nowhere does Sullivan provide evidence that the BBC is intentionally plotting to undermine the war effort. Nor is there any support for his conclusions beyond his own flimsy inferences. Yet this flawed reasoning allows him to, in essence, brand any reports that he disagrees with as pro-Saddam propaganda.

Sullivan extended his pseudo-logic in another post today:

If the war is more protracted, that makes the home front much more important. The propaganda organs against this war will fight hard to weaken American resolve. They are Saddam's only real hope - that Americans will tire of casualties, lose confidence, and make some sort of deal with the devil. With this president, that won't happen. But heaven knows, the anti-war right and left will do all they can to derail a war they so fiercely opposed. They will use even the slightest civilian casualties, however tiny in relative terms, into an hysterical campaign to foment regional unrest and sap morale at home. We have to counter and challenge their every argument.

This argument is tenuous at best. Relying on news coverage of civilian and military casualties, he claims that such coverage amounts to a coordinated effort to "weaken American resolve." Yet provides no evidence that coverage of civilian and military casualties amounts to such an effort. By claiming stories quoting critics of the war or describing military and civilian casualties amount to an anti-war "argument" that must be "counter[ed] and challenge[d]," he is again able to frame any skepticism about coalition conduct and progress as anti-war propaganda and suggest that the news outlets themselves are supporting Saddam.

There is certainly room for legitimate debate about the slant of war coverage from different media outlets; one of the BBC's own correspondents has raised questions about the network's reporting in a memo to his superiors. But Coulter and Sullivan cross the line when they suggest that organizations whose coverage they disagree with are pro-Saddam.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Spinsanity on Ann Coulter
-Spinsanity on Andrew Sullivan

3/27/2003 05:37:10 PM EST |

Letter: Marc Herold responds (3/27)

Dear Spinsanity:

You mention me in a recent column and I would like to briefly respond. My research on Afghan civilian casualties first published on December 10, 2001 and since then constantly updated and revised did originally include some errors. The overall effect of such "double-counting" amounted to less than 5% of the total count. Mr. Welch is simply wrong to assert that I relied upon Taliban data. I did not, though I did employ the independent Afghan Islamic Press as a source - a source which received high marks from the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, John Burns (of the New York Times) and many others. I might add that to blithely assume that the Taliban would necessarily inflate casualties is mistaken, as my study using the literature on the psychology of the bombed reveals. My research covers the universe of U.S. attacks, whereas many other studies were merely sample studies (e.g., those of Reuters, John Donnelly, Dexter Filkins, Global Exchange, etc.). As I pointed out in my survey (The Guardian, August 8, 2002) of the studies done, the results of the better survey studies corroborate my universe study. Lastly, using official estimates of the Pentagon and defense institutes, I calculate that ~3,500 U.S. bombs missed their targets in the first five months of the Afghan campaign. Given the explosive power of these projectiles and where they were mostly dropped (in civilian-rich areas), I wager that this too confirms my estimates of 3,100 - 3,600 innocent Afghan civilians being killed at the point of impact of these "precision" projectiles.

Sincerely,

Marc W. Herold
Professor of Economic Development, International Affairs & Women's Studies
University of New Hampshire

Ben Fritz replies: Welch, whose work I cite, does not allege that Herold got some of his data directly from the Taliban, but rather from the "Afghan Islamic Press, which got its data from the Taliban." Questions about the reliability of the Afghan Islamic Press or data from the Taliban are certainly valid.

Indeed, my main point, which Professor Herold does not dispute, is that there are many conflicting studies about just how many civilians died in the Afghanistan war. Given this, I believe citing Professor Herold's work as authoritative without any context for how he arrived at his figures can be misleading. I commend him for his Guardian article, as it presents a number of the different studies done and outlines the differences between them (such as reliance only on Western news sources vs. Afghan outlets that may have gotten some data from the Taliban) while defending his own conclusions. This is clearly a complex and disputed case. As such, I would only argue that those who want to use civilian casualties in Afghanistan as a cautionary tale for war in Iraq should be careful about how they present those figures.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Myths and misconceptions about Iraq (Ben Fritz, 3/20/03)
-Ted Rall's faulty questions (Ben Fritz, 8/14/02)

3/26/2003 07:06:54 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS