Pro-war media critics deceive and distort (4/16)

By Ben Fritz

Now that the U.S. has won the war in Iraq, some pro-war pundits and journalists are taking the opportunity to crow, pointing out examples of those who doubted the war effort would go smoothly and, in the process, often implying that the U.S. media has been broadly anti-war. But while some commentators did indeed make predictions that were proven wrong, one publication in particular, the Washington Times, has grossly overplayed its hand, making broad accusations of anti-war bias that, on close examination, prove to be deceptive.

An article from the Times last Thursday, for instance, led with the claim that "Baghdad's jubilation got the cold shoulder from some journalists yesterday," but proved little of the kind. Amongst the evidence is a comparison of two networks' coverage of the toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad: "While Fox News described the Baghdad scene as 'filled with hundreds of joyful people,' ABC's Peter Jennings' characterized the throng as 'a small crowd.'" The fact that Jennings didn't use an overtly positive adjective to describe the size of the crowd, which numbered a few hundred, is hardly evidence of a "cold shoulder," especially when one considers other statements from the same report that writer Jennifer Harper ignores. Jennings called the toppling "an extraordinary scene" and reporter Richard Engel said "it is just amazing now" and noted that "there was some very excited whistling coming from these crowds."

Harper also made note of a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center and its findings that 39 percent of respondents felt there was "too much coverage" of the war, 36 percent said there was too much "ex-military commentary," and 40 percent believe there has been excessive coverage of "anti-war sentiment." She fails to mention, however, that in the first two cases, a majority of respondents felt the coverage was the "right amount," while a combined 56 percent thought coverage of anti-war sentiment was the "right amount" or "too little."

Harper's piece is not the only deceptive coverage of anti-war sentiment in recent Washington Times news stories. As Bob Somerby observed in The Daily Howler, a story by James Lakely that appeared on Sunday in the Times stated that "Among the most prominent were retired Army Gens. Barry R. McCaffrey and Wesley K. Clark, who regularly took to the cable-news channels to predict a longer and more difficult battle for control of Baghdad than actually unfolded." But in an appearance on CNN in February, Clark predicted the war would take "two weeks," shorter than its actual duration. (Roll Call's Morton Kondracke also misrepresented Clark's views on Fox News, as Somerby pointed out earlier.)

The Howler went on to note that Lakely bungled more facts, claiming that a story that appeared in the New York Times was printed in the Washington Post and that its "sole quoted source of active battlefield complainers was an anonymous colonel" even though the story also cites "widely publicized comments" by V Corps Commander Lt. General William S. Wallace. The Times story doesn't actually quote Wallace, but Lakely is clearly being deceptive in ignoring this prominent citation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the deception appeared on the Times' commentary pages as well, where syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin wrote that "The antiwar grouches, naysayers and quagmirists in the mainstream media were so, so sure there would be no jubilation at the Iraqi liberation." She criticizes a piece by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, writing that he "opined: 'If this isn't Vietnam, neither is it the Afghanistan campaign, where Americans were hailed as liberators. I was in Afghanistan during that war, and the difference is manifest. Afghans were giddy and jubilant, while Iraqis now are typically sullen and distrustful and thirsty.'" She also criticized ABC's "Good Morning America" co-host Diane Sawyer, saying she "derided: 'What happened to the flowers expected to be tossed the way of the Americans? Was it a terrible miscalculation?'"

Both examples are, once again, unrepresentative samples. Malkin fails to note, for instance, that Kristof actually interviewed Iraqis who seem hesitant about the U.S. military presence and states "It's too early to know definitively what Iraqis think, and for now, the signals are mixed, with jubilation in Najaf and anger in many other areas." She also neglects to mention that Sawyer's statement was made early in the war, when U.S. forces had only reached the south of Iraq and few Iraqis were publicly expressing joy, in part due to the prospect of retaliation from the Iraqi government and Baath Party apparatchiks that were still exercising power on behalf of the regime. Malkin also implies that Sawyer's questions were rhetorical, when in fact they were real questions, followed by "We'll find out what an expert has to say, coming up."

Providing context for quotes or numbers, however, seems to be of little interest to these journalists and pundits bashing an allegedly anti-war media.

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

4/16/2003 08:33:54 AM 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