Huffington Post reporter Michael Calderone (2/17/12) has a fairly comprehensive look at the way media are covering Iran (I wish he’d cited FAIR’s long record on this; perhaps next time). The point is that Iran coverage looks a whole lot like Iraq coverage, circa 2002. Really bad, in other words.
Calderone gets a pretty revealing comment from an insider:
One national security reporter, who has covered the intelligence community and Iran but was not authorized to comment, says that pre-Iraq War coverage and recent Iran coverage are “terrifyingly similar.”
“I don’t think we are falling totally back into where we were before, but I do think you’re seeing, in some corners of our profession, we’re making the same mistakes we made a decade ago,” the reporter said. “We’re taking things at face value and we’re rushing to get ahead of a story that we don’t know where it’s going.”
The piece is worth a read. But I was struck by the on-the-record comments at the end from a veteran investigative reporter:
NBC investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who co-authored Hubris, a 2006 book on the selling of the Iraq War, said that “it’s unfortunate that the experience in Iraq has so colored the debate on Iran, as to perhaps make it more difficult to focus on what the real issues are.”
“People who are skeptical about claims about an Iranian nuclear program will point to the Iraq experience,” Isikoff added. “That doesn’t mean they’re right and it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. It just means, it’s just a historical fact that we’re going to look at these issues through the lens of the misleading claims that were made about Iraq.”
I think that’s completely upside down. To the extent that the Iraq experience at all “colors” the Iran debate, it’s made people–not necessarily journalists–more skeptical of what politicians and pundits are saying. Contrary to what Isikoff seems to be saying, skepticism need not be “right”–journalism isn’t about placing bets on a particular outcome. As FAIR was arguing in 2003, we did not know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. What we could know was that efforts to find them were turning up empty, and that the claims by U.S. officials could not be independently substantiated.
Skepticism is essential to good journalism, and it was in short supply in 2002. If there is more of it now, that is nothing but a positive development.
The larger issue isn’t whether Iran is aiming to build a nuclear weapon, but, if it is, why.
Given the forces arrayed against it, a nuke may be seen as the best insurance against attack. And, given the consequences of such an attack for Iran and the region – and the world – having that insurance might prove beneficial for us all.
But the best solution is for the Middle East to be nuclear-weapon free, and for all nations with nukes to decommission these avatars of utter insanity.
Perhaps the acronym “MAD” has faded from our political vocabulary in recent years, but the madness remains with us as long as these abominations exist.
I agree, Doug. The best solution would be a nuclear free Middle East and a decommissioning of oher nukes. I also agree that Iran most likely sees a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to an attack.
What is bothering me, however, is that my newspaper, which has a fairly large reach, prints commentaries and “letters to the editor” from a pro-war view. I wrote a letter from an “anti-war”viewpoint and the paper was considering publishing it but never did. I have seen no other anti-war letters, either, and I’m sure my letter wasn’t the only one expressing that point of view.
My question to the media and the warhawks is this: If you are so gung-ho for another war, how do you intend to pay for it?
Iran and others in the Middle East have been in favor in the past of a denuclearized region, which would be good for world security, but the idea is blocked by Israel, which wants to keep its unilateral arsenal, and by the US, which wants to deploy its nukes to the region without restriction while preserving Israel’s massive stockpile. In this context, the real threat of Iranian nukes is to US/Israeli nuclear impunity.
Well, Iraq’s oil was supposed to pay for our “freeing” them; but oil companies prefer to keep their profits for themselves so taxpayers eventually will, no doubt, have to pay this burden, as well as for Afghanistan, Libya, and, through our donations to Israel, the Palestinian lands, and who-knows-who’s-next, most likely Iran because it, too, has “our oil beneath its sand.” Why haven’t Americans gotten wise yet to the pattern: demonize the leader of land coveted for its resources, attack to “free” its people (destroying the land in the process) and find a way to take charge of said resources? This devastating capitalist plot can only be solved by a more egalitarian system!
It’s a straight forward question. Once the dogs of war are unleashed, we never know where they’re going so we would need to prepare for the worst, not best case, scenario. Remember how we were told that Iraq would greet us with flowers and candy?
How do the warmongers intend to pay for yet another war?
Doug L., yes. This is the answer. All nations in the sphere must be subject to strict UN inspection. Tribal ideologies have no function in a world with nukes. In years past the tribal system was a method of survival, but today, it is a sure road to the end.
The “big picture” here is not that reporters need to be “more skeptical.” I think that most of the people who pound the beat are probably as skeptical (and as cynical) as the ideal reporter is fantasized to be.
What has changed is the return to the old school of yellow journalism, as promoted by the publishers and senior editors of our flagship media outlets.
As a case in point, I vividly recall reading a NYT front page story with a Judith Miller byline. She was accusing Saddam Hussein of hiding trucks full of anthrax or some such nonsense, and then, in the very same issue of the Times, on page 14 near the bottom was about 4 inches worth of an article by former Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ridder saying that he couldn’t find a blessed thing.
Somebody made a decision to place those respective stories where they ended up, and it wasn’t for a lack of Ridder being a skeptic.
I believe you are correct. There are publishers and senior editors returning to the old school of yellow journalism. These are the ones who make the call to promote the pro-war stories in a prominent place and play down (or omit) the anti-war responses.
Yes… it is disastrous when many factual realities are not discussed, it could almost be called “look the other way” journalism.
The most undiscussed wrinkle of “a strike on Iran” is that citizens of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and potentially many more countries including Iraq, will be exposed to unprecedented armed conflict and turmoil, while those officials who called for the strike will have escaped on helicopters or airplanes.
This sort of basic truth seems like it would appeal to all journalistic outlets.
It is a war crime that we can see will happen, directly against Israel, under the guise of being pro-Israel. Why, we must wonder?
Unfortunately, the only way to stop the incessant contrived wars to re-institute the military draft. Kind of harsh, but it appears that there no other way to get citizen attention off of reality TV shows and pay attention to what our government, the defense industry and oil interests are conspiring to do. Hey, political campaigns are expensive and SOMEONE has to pay.
Yes, let’s poke Iran in the eye again with a stick and see if they will give us any kind of excuse to attack.
Jerry: I agree. Want another war? Then let’s have a draft! Everybody goes to war, men and women,–no exceptions, no exemptions– not just that sliver of Americans who had to fight for years in Iraq and or Afghanistan,–or paid mercenaries– while we watched it through filtered TV news stories.
Want another war? Let’s have a war tax on everyone. If people want war that much, put your money where your mouth is and pay for it. A war tax should go over real well with Americans.
A draft and higher taxes. If war is wanted that badly, we all need to be a part of it.
Let’s keep squeezing Iran till they finally lash out and we have a reason to declare another war.
I favor a war with Iran because I oppose it. The United States seems unable to learn the lesson of instigating unprovoked wars. OK, then. What typically stops empires is never the opposition of anti-war/anti-imperialist agitation at home (although it always helps). What ends the imperial project is the willingness of victim populations to use violence to defend themselves. Usually such self-defense has historically cost the lives of those fighting back in numbers far outpacing those of whom empire has sent to do its dirty work. Iranians fighting back will die in hundreds of thousands. Americans, in the few hundreds — Israelis, maybe in the tens.
So, why would I want such a thing? I don’t. Unfortunately, however, moralistic peace-mongering won’t deliver peace (but again it does help). What will do it is the exhaustion that the price-tag of empire will impose on the attacking nation. Iran will exact the last drop of American and Israeli blood needed to make both nations re-assess the cost of the imperial project. This is the “benefit” of a war with Iran. My hope is that one more debilitating war, with its horrific ramifications at home and abroad, will so cripple the United States that trying to launch another one AFTER Iran would be politically impossible. What breaks my heart is that Iran would have to pay in hundreds of thousands of their own lives the cost of delivering the needed crippling blow to end the American thirst for unprovoked wars against others. The U.S. cannot be argued into peace; it must be beaten into it by long attrition, imposed by an “enemy” that won’t accept defeat. Iran may well be that “enemy”. Iran, unwittingly, may be the nation that saves the world from future U.S. violence.
In spite of my gloomy outlook, I happen to believe (based on polling one can see referenced in the writings of Michael Moore’s and Noam Chomsky’s books) that Americans, in the main, are not warlike. But those un-warlike Americans are not heard, and the business model of American corporate journalism does not reflect their views. There are enough conservative bat-poopers to justify the Israel-lobbyists’ faith that the corporate press can sell another war to the American populace. Time will tell, as they say.
The same people who pushed for attacking Iraq are leading the push for attacking Iran. I hope everyone is aware that we attacked Iraq not for oil, but first and foremost at the demand of Israel (which already in 1996 was contemplating and planning this travesty). Iraq, in spite of Saddam Hussein, was in the main a flourishing secular society and Israel wants above all to keep hegemony in the region so it can do as it pleases and attack whomever it pleases. Few people dare to say this outright lest they be blackballed forever or called “anti-semitic”. Up to now this has worked very well to keep people quiet, but as the saying goes: You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all the time. All those who think that an attack on Iran by whomever would be a tragedy for the region as well as for America should speak up to where it counts: Write. again and again. to the White House, to their congressmen, to the press and demand a return to sanity for all our sakes.
Many of those in the West who are pushing for war with Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power swear that a nuclear armed Iran will encourage a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not one of these Western experts has ever bothered to explain why few if any of them seem to fear that the existence of Israel’s mass of nuclear weapons will have the same effect on other nations in the region. This makes absolutely no sense until one remembers that these are the same unbiased Western experts who spent years lying to the world about the existence of apartheid South Africa’s nuclear weapons when it suited their geo-political agenda.
Nice comments. I think Isikoff is merely giving us a variant of the bad old “he said–she said” argument. And the claims about Iraq’s weaponry and ties to terrorist groups weren’t “misleading,” they were huge lies that resulted in absolute catastrophe, for Iraqis and the US (to a lesser extent).
it strikes me that isikoff is just worried that since the corporate media carried water for bushco and got it totally wrong that that might give some readers pause as the corporate media beats the drums for the next war they want
Peace Though Parity.
Everybody must either increase or decrease their nuclear weapon capacity together in order to make any bully think very carefully about nuclear murder, or even imposing the austerity of food terrorism on isolated nations.
It is, after all, a Mad Mad Mad World.
I get confused a bit everytime I read the typical “what was wrong with attacking Iraq” thing. Invariably, it seems to come down to “Irag didn’t have the weapons”.
Those guys were selling war on Iraq. It had nothing to do with did he or didn’t he have the stuff. It does not matter now that he did not have the stuff. It would not have made it ok or correct if he had possessed the stuff would it? Please lose this inane narrative. If we can’t be more specific then just leave it out of the argument!
If and when Iran wants a nuke Iran will have a nuke. It is not up to us. There is no basis for going to war with a country on the basis that it “might be” or “must be” or “surely is” up to something.
I’m so fed up with the country that Donald P is closest to my thinking. Although Americans in the the main as he puts it are not war-like, the corporate whores will come up with polling that states otherwise.
Ed on the one hand you are right.But you forgot something.What does one do to a madman on your block who threatens your life and the life of your family on a daily basis…retracts none of his past threats ,and openly seeks to obtain weapons.I suppose you could live with “If and when the madman on my block wants a 45 cal auto he will have it.It is not up to us”.Your a brave man and welcome to it.
I noticed the some of the same similarities in coverage and wrote this:
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/the-u-s-should-stand-their-ground-with-iran/
PTxS