Does the past record of journalists matter?by Glenn Greenwald
snip
I'm now finishing up a long article for Harper's about America's War Culture: why war advocacy has been and continues to be the reflexive, required perspective of the nation's foreign policy elite. I don't want to say too much about the piece, but one central reason for this is that those who were most spectacularly wrong in cheering for the attack on Iraq have not only faced no accountability, but have thrived, been rewarded, have seen their positions of influence elevated. Conversely, those who were right continue to be marginalized. That's due in part to the ethos implicit in Fallows' defense of Goldberg: it's so unfair to have their prior behavior affect their current status and credibility. As a result, our war policies -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran -- are all being shaped by the very same war-hungry political and media elites who performed so disgracefully in 2002 and 2003. Goldberg's Iran essay and the Seriousness with which it's being treated -- and which Fallows demands it be accorded -- is a perfect example of that dynamic. That Jeffrey Goldberg of all people is the reporter to whom we turn to understand the contours of the Iran debate would be comical if it weren't so troubling, and it illustrates the broader shield from accountability with which political and media elites have vested themselves.
There are a small handful of the most vigorous Iraq War supporters who have commendably confronted what they did and candidly confessed their errors. In my view, that's somewhat credibility-restorative. But Jeffrey Goldberg is most certainly not a person who has done so. Quite the opposite: he continues to use his blog to peddle and re-affirm the most discredited of his pre-war falsehoods about Saddam. So it's not just that Goldberg committed past journalistsic sins; it's that he continues to this day to defend what he did (the only Iraq "error" which Goldberg is willing to admit is that he underestimated Bush's incompetence in prosecuting the war).
Why should Goldberg confess to any errors? There's no incentive for him to do so. Most other people in influence -- Obama's leading national security officials, media stars, think tank experts -- are guilty of the same sins Goldberg committed regarding Iraq. All of them therefore collectively and conveniently agree that they will just forget about that whole messy Iraq business, and thus ensure that one's responsibility for it does not impede one's ongoing career success or level of influence. Goldberg is still treated as credible and influential despite his unrepented Iraq falsehoods because the people who determine credibility and influence did essentially the same thing he did, and are thus incentivized to maintain a Look Forward, Not Backward amnesia, ensuring that nobody pays a price for anything that happened (see, as but one example, Slate's Fred Kaplan -- who was also spectacularly wrong in his Iraq-war-enabling reporting -- gushing this week about Goldberg's brilliance: "the best article I've read on the subject -- shrewd and balanced reporting combined with sophisticated analysis of the tangled strategic dilemmas."). Meanwhile, Goldberg's colleague publicly demands that nobody hold Goldberg's past transgressions against him. No profession is more accountability-free than establishment journalism.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/13/past/index.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
