The current round of Syria-might-use-chemical-weapons stories sound a bit like the warnings about Iraq and WMDs before the 2003 invasion. How could media do more to mimic that awful performance? Bring back some of the same journalists who so badly misjudged Iraq and treat them as experts.
That’s what Meet the Press did on December 9 when they invited Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic on to weigh in on Syria. It was a brief exchange, but the presence of Goldberg and the question he was asked are both revealing. Here’s how moderator David Gregory kicked things off:
For more on this developing story I want to go to The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg…. Jeffrey, you cover this entire region extensively and have for years, you heard what the president said and what Richard [Engel] has said. Why this red line, something the United States never did in Iraq, for instance, when Hussein used chemical weapons, but we’re doing it here, big shift maybe?
I suppose we have to assume that Gregory is talking about Iraqi chemical attacks in the late 1980s, most infamously the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. The United States did spend a fair amount of time talking about the chemical attacks that U.S. troops could face as they invaded, which obviously did not happen.
So if that’s indeed what Gregory meant, then it’s a rather odd question. Saddam Hussein was, at that time, an ally of the United States. The U.S. government’s reaction to news of the Halabja atrocities was first to blame Iran, and then to continue to provide support to the Hussein regime. (Read this fantastic review of the Washington Post‘s coverage by Seth Ackerman—Extra!, 9–10/02).
So Gregory’s question is absurd—unless he was intending to make a subtle yet devastating point about the duplicity of U.S. foreign policy and our government’s record of shielding the government that killed thousands with chemical weapons.
Or maybe he thought his guest might do the same—Goldberg, who reports on “this entire region extensively,” must know this history. But Goldberg’s response was a predictable lament about Obama’s apparent unwillingness to intervene more aggressively in the brutal Syrian civil war: “There is no real Obama doctrine here except for passivity, I’m afraid to say.”
So who is Jeffrey Goldberg? Gregory told viewers he’d been covering this part of the world for years. A more important point might be that the last time the media was whipped up into a frenzy over the alleged weapons of mass destruction of an enemy state, Goldberg was in the thick of it.
Remember the notion that Iraq was somehow in cahoots with Al Qaeda? As Ken Silverstein wrote in Harpers (6/06):
Prior to the American-led invasion of Iraq, Goldberg wrote two lengthy articles in the New Yorker which argued that there were extensive ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
One of those pieces relied heavily on an source who turned out to be, in the estimation of Observer reporter Jason Burke (2/8/03), a liar. As Silverstein put it:
In urging war on Iraq, Goldberg took highly dubious assertions—for example, that Saddam was an irrational madman in control of vast quantities of WMDs and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were deeply in bed together—and essentially asserted them as fact.
So what were the professional consequences for Goldberg? As Glenn Greenwald pointed out (Salon.com, 6/27/10), two of Goldberg’s pre-war pieces won major journalism awards, and the Atlantic‘s owner went to unusual, even absurd lengths to hire him away from the New Yorker.
So that’s the price one pays in big media for being so wrong about a matter of enormous consequence. You never have to admit you were wrong; in fact, you’ll be invited on television shows where other journalists will treat you like you’re an expert.
Doug Latimer
This really isn’t about “being so wrong”, though, is it?
That supposes that the man is trying to be accurate, but failing abysmally at it.
Even if you allow for an initial error, to repeat the same act over and over again can only lead to the conclusion that this is deliberate disinformation.
And to repeatedly honor such behavior, and to seek to validate it by providing a forum for such propaganda, are likewise not indicative of incompetence
But of complicity.
You don’t have to have a PhD in mathematics
Or political science
To put two and two together here
Do you?
Glenn
The truth is cheap.
A well crafted lie that sufficiently portrays truth to the United States of Amnesia is worth a fortune to its purveyors.
There is still money to be made by the Corporate Info-masters of America.
Tom Murphy
There’s something extremely wrong going on in our country. Jeffrey Goldberg should not be given the platform he is given, especially since he abuses it to deviously protect the racist Zionist agenda and does so ruthlessly. He had the audacity to reply to a woman asking why the terrorists were so angry that they took lessons to fly planes to attack us on 9/11 with BS about anger at “whispering temptation to consume alcohol.” The man very clearly has crossed the line and should be fired, he should no longer have a public platform.
See depraved denial of the main motive for the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ
FreeSpirit
To assume that Goldberg made a mistake is as wrong as assuming that the US (under dull-witted Dubya) blundered the war on Iraq. It is the job of people like Goldberg and Silverstein to push the Zionist/Neocon agenda and their compensation is commensurate to their success.
Gore Vidal called this country the United States of Amnesia. As long as Americans are in so much addictive stupor that they can’t even remember what they had for breakfast, the masters of misinformation will continue to remake these political B movie scripts to further their agenda. The goal is total hegemony over the region by the US an Israel bullies.
Rob Polhemus
Jeffrey Goldberg has an article in the latest Atlantic advocation that US citizens own more guns. People like him are responsible for the Newton School assassination of tens of children. How such a bloodthristy figure can be heeded as a responsible source for anything is obscene.
Jeff Carlson
FreeSpirit, what exactly is it that you think Ken Silverstein has done wrong here? I really don’t understand. Journalism in this country is pretty much how you say it is, but Silverstein is usually associated with Harper’s and CounterPunch. I don’t know why you’ve decided he’s one of the bad guys.
I think conflating Zionism and neoconservatism is a mistake as well. That Israel came to be seen as a useful ally of American imperialism is a historical accident rather than an ideological necessity. There was surely an affinity to another colonial venture, yes, but there’s something pragmatic at work as well. Goldberg’s own Zionism may have contributed to his pushing the WMD myth, but the people actually in charge had bigger fish to fry.
primum non nocere
Jeff Carlson, you’ve unmasked “Free Spirit”‘s bias. Despite the fact that Silverstein was calling Goldberg out, Ms. or Mr. “Free Spirit” assumes that anyone named Silverstein must be a “Zionist/neocon.” Very interesting.
Bozidar Kornic
This is amazing, astonishing how the press can be manipulated by the military industrial complex which thrives on the profits made by various wars we get involved in. Where was the same press when in 1965 U.S. over threw Sukarno in Indonesia, and our ambassador was feeding the junta the names of the labor leaders, and other ‘terrorist’ which were elected worker’s unions leaders. One million of the Indonesians died in the U.S. staged coup. so much for the fairness of our press.
Robert Grant
Yeah Doug, it’s propaganda.
Lawrence Nannery
I agree with many of the comments that have been made. David Gregory is not half as smart as he would need to be in order to host a news show of any consequence, and Goldberg’s background disqualifies him from speaking about the people whom his community hates with a passion with any hint of objectivity.
ajamu chaminuka
BUSTED! Mr. Goldberg
gregorylkruse
Beautifully said, Free Spirit. There is a powerful temptation in these confines to assume far too much about a person based solely on a casually written sentence. I’ve been guilty of it as well as victim of it. Imagine what it is like when millions are reading and hearing your sentences. Still, deliberate lying for a cause deserves derision.
FreeSpirit
@gregorylkruse. I have been guilty of it too. So lecturing primum non nocere on the subject makes me a hypocrite! But I’m human, full of mistakes, biases, falsely held beliefs, and yes hypocrisy!
j golden
what’s the mossad’s motto? powered by deception?
like bill kristol, kagans, krauthammer (love the name)- mr. goldberg is on the long list of people who get all kinds of (propaganda) media time speaking for ultra military (violent) world “needs” . the list of these people should publicized and made clear. a warning should appear when they speak or write. better yet, they should be OFF the tv shows especially- where by mistake, casual listeners can be harmed and serious listeners can be driven insane!
zionism and u.s. and israeli warmaking and weapons businesses are a clear danger to all of us- to our physical safety and to our mental health, too!
get these guys off the tv, at least! … “there oughta be a law….”
michael e
So this entire FAIR Blog is a shot against those who believed most of the intel from all over the world at that time.Saddam himself admitted to keeping the world guessing.So we are now supposed to disregard all intel that tells us danger may exist here?Im living in a liberal world -and I am a liberal nut(sing to Madonnas “material girl”.)