Devastating critique of media pre-war reporting. They are to blame too.

[loudnclear]

Michael Massing offers a devastating critique of pre-war reporting -- especially by the New York Times -- on Iraq's alleged WMD: "Despite abundant evidence of the administration's brazen misuse of intelligence in this matter, the press repeatedly let officials get away with it. As journalists rush to chronicle the administration's failings on Iraq, they should pay some attention to their own." www.cursor.org.

[Richardo]

1. Good! The drum-beaters in the media need to be accountable...

The quandry is: the media will not criticize the media. It'll have to come from elsewhere.

[Jacobin]

2. They gave up their role as "watchdog of the government"

a decade or more ago.

These lapdogs are completely useless at this point.

[bryant69]

5. I do think that's a little harsh

I mean there are problems, sure, but to say they are completely useless goes past the mark.

I think, for example, it's simplistic to say that they all love President Bush so wanted his war to succeed. It's more accurate to say that they have a bias towards in favor of big stories that will draw a lot of viewers in. In other words they could get more viewers/readers by telling scary stories than by puncturing the stories the administration put forward.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[el_gato]

6. they care more about propagandizing than they do about revenue

the revenue comes from the massive defense contracts
the purpose of the media is to manufacture the mindset of americans
revenue is secondary, otherwise they would actually show stuff people want to see

[bryant69]

11. Hmmmm

I guess if you choose to believe this, that's your right; but I'm not sure I buy it.

They do show stuff people want to see--I think you are making the mistake of assuming that what you want to see is what everybody else wants to see.

[rman]

8. indeed, like Jacobin said: "completely useless"

"telling scary stories" rather then "puncturing the stories the administration put forward."

I'd say it is more accurate to say that the media have a bias towards stories that favor the interests of the owners of the media, and the interests of the ones these owners are associated with; the corporate establishment, and by extension the government. In the mean time we're supposed to believe the media has a liberal bias.

[glarius]

3. The USA media were cheerleaders of the Iraq war from the get-go

They not only went along pre-war, but were oh so eager to be "embedded" ....They do not have much to be proud about in this whole thing....Americans had to go to foreign news sources for the truth...

[MoonAndSun]

4. The NYTimes need to put out an editorial with a "mea cupla"

they had almost all of their columnists (except Paul Krugman) banging the war drums. And then they have Judith Miller, Chalabi's best buddy, writing her columns full of the lies Chalabi was feeding her. They were suppose to be in the front lines of letting the American people know what was really happening in the rollout of the Iraqi invasion, but instead they were leading the war chants!!

They have blood on their hands, along with most of the large newspapers around the country.

[BillZBubb]

7. Judith Miller is the biggest war whore of all

Like you said she pimped every one of the neocon lies about WMD. Has she ever apologized? Don't hold your breath.

[Imalittleteapot]

9. It's not just WMD and war reporting

It's everything. Take for example the Medicare / Prescription drug bill. The negatives were not reported until after the bill was passed and it was too late for people to protest to their representatives.

The media has been irresponsible to the American people on every issue.

[MoonAndSun]

10. And when the millions of anti-war protesters hit the streets around

the world, all the major papers downplayed the numbers.

May they all rot in hell, along with bush* and his cabal.