ON HOW WE BOUGHT THE WAR

ROLLING WITH IT

This documentary by PBS's Billy Moyers titled "Buying the War", is head-shaking stuff, regardless of one's party affiliation.  It changes what we think we ma know about how we came to invade Iraq.  Here's what it's about:

"Buying the War" examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what's changed?
"More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration," says THE WASHINGTON POST's Walter Pincus. "We've sort of given up being independent on our own."

In particular, the piece tries to:

"...document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war."

The program is important not just because it explains how the mainstream media was lead by the nose on the "evidence trail" convincing us of the need to invade Iraq, but in understanding how sophisticated this process can be, regardless of political affiliation.  Especially since the nation was so shaken and fearful after 9/11.

Other contributing factors were the consolidation of mainstream media, and the group-think that can hypnotize otherwise rational folks.

Household media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and even Oprah, amongst many others, got caught up in this orchestrated group-think.

In addition, the piece tries to explain how the embattled business models of mainstream media, also contributes to the situation, and leads to an unintentionally unbalanced media.

It's also an object lesson on the devolution of journalism in recent years, despite all the marvelous technologies that have sprung up over the last decade or so. 

It shows how the mainstream media, driven by economic pressures has traded expensive reporting and global news bureaus for pundits, experts and other talking heads "debating" issues on TV.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Comments

[Brian Hayes]

I'm thinking it's a business decision because it's cheaper to string a story from the Whitehouse or Washington or Wall Street.

Here's a more traditional piece of journalism that reveals respectable effort and professionalism:

"The War In Iraq", reports the prestigious Asia Times, "Is Hellishly Expensive. Only 10% Goes Toward Troops. The Rest Is Basically Stolen."

[Alex Tolley]

I haven't seen the documentary, but I think it is not just some simple commercial dynamic. There was a lot of talk about "treason" if the the adminstration's position was countered. Admittedly, this was mostly from the wingnuts like Coulter, but this was definitely the zeitgeist. The Dixie chicks tried to protest the war at a concert in England and had their CDs publically destroyed and their airtime removed, forcing them to restart their business pitching to the rock crowd. Unlike Vietnam, there is next to no protest songs about the war. I think this speaks volumes about what is going on.

The newspapers clearly want to make money and have influence. The White House has punished reporters to ensure they toe the line, much like stock analysts are punished for issuing "sell" reports. Without access, there are no stories to sell papers. the NY Times' Judy Miller just spouted whatever the administration "leaked" to her. But over an above all this, if your paper was called "traitorious", that would definitely crimp sales and influence, so they avoided this moniker by not questioning authority.

At bottom, what has changed, not too subtly, is that the government is applying the age-old Machiavellian principle of ruling by fear.