PRESSING ISSUES
How the 'Washington Post' Promoted a War -- Part II
Editors now admit its news coverage during the run-up to the attack on Iraq was terribly one-sided. But the editorial page was even worse.
By Greg Mitchell
(August 22, 2004) -- Why keep returning to the question of press complicity in the Iraq war? After all, nothing we now say or do or write can halt the invasion, breathe life into the dead or re-attach thousands of missing limbs. It's a good question, but as one who has written hundreds of thousands of words on the use of atomic weapons in 1945 without saving a life or a soul, it's not likely to stop me.
Putting aside any political or moral questions, a reason to keep returning to the issue is this: It provides a Journalism 101 textbook example of what happens when reporters and editors attach too much credibility to statements by officials with an agenda or axe to grind.
It could be any officials on any issue. The case of Iraq is just deadlier and more tragic than most. It also involves the nation's most respected newspapers, making it an even better (or more shameful) example.
As much of the media world knows, Howard Kurtz, at his own initiative, wrote a front-page article in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, detailing how, in retrospect, some of the newspaper's editors now acknowledge that they provided one-sided (i.e., pro-administration) coverage during the run-up to the attack on Iraq. Last week, I complained that editors quoted by Kurtz offered as many excuses as admissions, but let's look at a different question now, for posterity.
more
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000616218Excellent muckraking!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
