Mail&Guardian: Was US press in 'coma' during drive to war with Iraq?

[Buck Turgidson]

Stephen Collinson | Washington, United States
22 November 2005 12:15

United States media organisations are now skewering President George Bush over his case for ousting Saddam Hussein, but few questioned the pro-war juggernaut in the run-up to battle.

Now, with the White House's once feared public relations machine misfiring, Bush's approval ratings plumbing their lowest depths, and US troops still dying in foreign fields, many commentators and journalists are piling on the pressure.

As the White House and suddenly bold Democratic rivals trade bilious charges over Iraq, a new book by award winning journalist Kristina Borjesson demands an accounting from the media on its own pre-war errors.

In Feet to the Fire, the media after 9/11, 21 reporters reflect on the Bush administration's case for the preemptive invasion of Iraq in 2003, on the grounds Saddam could offer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Many of those interviewed penned questioning reports before the war, but were muffled by a drumbeat of bombastic television and newspaper coverage.

"The bottom line is that in this era of twenty-four hour cable news, there is less hard news and real information than ever on television about what is going on in this nation's arena of power and around the world," Borjesson writes.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=257251

[acmavm]

1. No, not a coma. In cahoots with the criminal neocons.

.

[wtbymark]

2. ya think?

no further comment on the obvious

[izzie]

3. It was all their if you hunted. Some were not for the war but

I do not think they did a very good job putting all questions out there. It is hard to face the truth when the President was such a cheerleader for war. It seemed to be a job he was good at. Cheerleader.:nopity:

[MarianJack]

4. I agree with post #1!

Not in a coma, but complicit!

Trying to cover their asses now doesn't make it better. I can justify that attitude in over 2000 ways!

The media is pathetic today. Just this morning, on our local news, channel 8 in Portland, Maine, the female newsreader (I WON'T say reporter or journalist) referred to "soaring gas prices" and shortly afterard, the male referred to the plumeting costs!

NO standards!

[indepat]

6. Complicitous enablers

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Yes! They were pre-orgasmic. Some $$$ media outfits...

actually produced their own 'promos' ( example: "Showdown With Saddam", CBS am radio, NYC) replete with contracted actors and sound effects.

When the bombs started to fall and the dead started pile up ( uncounted by msm, of course) they could hardly contain themselves, for all of the excitement.

That... more so even than the governmental duplicity... is the true scandal of the war. Governments come and go and ALWAYS lie. Everyone takes it for granted. $$$Media still pretends , with a straight face, that it's dispensing objective truth, or at least making an honest effort to do so.

The USA really has to take a CLOSE look at its media; exhibit A is its behavior prior to and during the Iraq aggression. It's complicity with the war conspiracy is more significant than the conspiracy itself.

[sojourner]

7. allowing them the excuse of a "coma" was too generous by half...

anyone who made the effort to learn the facts found enough information to base their resistance upon - but that would describe (wild guess here based on IQ scores and distribution) no more than 25% of the population (and I think I'm being overly generous).