[Infowarrior] - The Press at War and the War on the Press

[Richard Forno]

The Press at War and the War on the Press
http://www.freepress.net/news/20485
>From Dangerous Intersection, January 13, 2007
By Erich Vieth

I¹m still reporting from the National Conference for Media Reform, from
Memphis. The conference is sponsored by Free Press.

This afternoon I attended a panel discussion exploring the issues set forth
in the title of this post. The moderator, Geneva Overholser (of the
University of Missouri School of Journalism), warned that when we criticize
the press, we should not be too general. There are, after all, many good
people doing honorable work in the profession.

The first speaker was Sonali Kolhatkar, who is a host and producer of a
popular morning drive time program called Uprising she is also the
co-director of a nonprofit organization, Afghan Women¹s Mission.

Kolhatkar noted that the media goes where the violence goes, then moves on.
At the present time, Afghanistan ³is blowing up.² There are suicide bombs,
as well as no liberation of Afghanistan women (a prime selling point for the
war). Nonetheless, the media (and thus, the American public) no longer
cares. She criticized the term ³war on terror.² You can¹t have a war ³on an
abstract noun.²

The second speaker was Paul Rieckhoff, who is the Executive Director and
founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans of America. Rieckhoff was an
infantry officer in Iraq from 2003-2004 . He was one of the first Iraq
veterans to publicly criticize the war. We¹ve written about Paul before.

Rieckhoff described the war in Iraq as a ³war of disconnect.² For instance,
³you never see a dead American soldier on TV.² In fact, you rarely hear the
American soldiers¹ perspective. You never hear the perspective of the
Iraqis. After the attack on Falluja, for instance, the press did not report
on the perspective of the Iraqi citizens or business people.

According to Rieckhoff, our media failed our soldiers by failing to ask the
administration important questions. When Rieckhoff returned home in 2004,
the number one story in the media was Janet Jackson¹s breast. American
soldiers commonly referred to Afghanistan as Forgetistan.

Why is there such a disconnect? Perhaps it¹s because less than 1% of
Americans have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In World War II, 10 to
12% of the population served in the war.

According to the White House, the media coverage of the war was flawed
because the media allegedly only told the stories about the bad things that
were happening. Reich offered response: ³If you only want good stories, go
to Disneyland.² Rieckhoff is a harsh critic of embedding, which he describes
as a ³shrewd move² by the administration.² What happens when one embeds?
³You compromise a large part of your journalistic integrity. You can¹t cover
my story while I¹m covering your ass.²

Rieckhoff does not agree with the characterization of this war as a ³war on
terror.² This characterization is ³bullshit. Terror is not the enemy; it¹s a
tactic.²

In Afghanistan and Iraq, our soldiers enjoyed in unprecedented ability to
communicate back home. They could be in a firefight, then be blogging an
hour later. But not if the military finds out. ³The Department of Defense
shuts down these blogs as soon as they pop up.²

Rieckhoff was asked whether he suffered any repercussions for speaking out.
He indicated that it is dangerous for veterans to speak out. It was
especially dangerous in the earlier days, before the war effort soured. When
Rieckhoff went public with his criticism, people in the military were okay
with him ³on the down low.² Now members of the military can be more openly
supportive of what Rieckhoff has done. Nonetheless, ³It is risky to speak
out.² Rieckhoff is mindful that he might have to go back to a wreck as part
of the Administration¹s recently announced ³surge.² He recommended that
those in the audience nonetheless encourage veterans to speak out.

Rieckhoff warns that the military very much distrusts the press, and that it
will take a lot of work to convince them otherwise. He also warns that the
blame game has already started. In the military this is what you call a CYA
drill. His concluding advice: ³Don¹t let the administration blame the media
or the Iraqis.²

The next speaker was Helen Thomas, the noted news service reporter who has
served for 57 years as a correspondent in the White House press corps.

Thomas stated that the American press corps has lost his way. Reporters
failed to ask the right questions, ³despite the shifting rationales for the
war that were offered by the administration, all of them untrue.² Any
reporter who dared to ask challenging questions were ridiculed. They were
asked things like ³Who the hell are you to ask that question?² Because of
this resistance, ³We gave up our one weapon: skepticism.² The Iraq war has
drained our treasury, destroyed Iraq and destroyed American credibility. We
³lost our Halo as visionaries for a better mankind.²

In the meantime, the White House became a disinformation mill. For example,
it has been uncovered that the military paid reporters to write for Iraqi
media..

The media continues to get it wrong. Bush is allowed to issue signing
statements indicating that he will not abide by the law. He listens in on
our phone calls and opens our mail. He sends people to secret prisons ³to be
tortured possibly.²

Fact gathering has suffered. ³Soundbites cannot replace a good solid story.²

Where is the liberal vigorous press, asks Thomas. ³I say bring em on.²
Thomas reminded the audience ³A free press is indispensable for a democracy.
You can¹t have a free country without a free press.²

Ultimately, Thomas is an optimist, based upon the recent election and other
developments. ³The truth cannot be buried.² She notes that the message has
gotten out of the people now, and that Bush¹s support has almost entirely
vanished.

The next speaker was Eric Boehlert, an author (Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled
over for Bush (2006)) and a senior fellow at Media Matters for America.
Boehlert echoed Overholser¹s concern that criticisms of the media should not
be too general. Good things are happening too.

Nonetheless, ³this war could not have been sold without the help of the
press.² He argued that the press was ³timid² and that the press ³fell down²
for this war on terror.² In his opinion, Iraq is ³the most serious press
failing in the last half-century.² What is the basis for his claim?

March 6, 2003 is a good illustration. It was still 10 days prior to the
invasion, and Bush held a so-called press conference. This was the press
conference where Bush used a ³cheat sheet² to decide who he was going to
call on her questions. He made a comment during the press conference that
³this is scripted,² laughing that is, was a joke. The problem, however, was
that the press conference was scripted. ³It was classic kabuki theater.²
Bush provided almost no information about why we were attacking Iraq.
³Anyone tuning in to get an explanation for the imminent invasion got no
answer.² Nor were there any follow-up questions. It was during this press
conference that Bush made 13 references to Al Qaeda. How is that relevant?

In theory, Iraq was the first uncensored war. On the other hand,
photographers were sending back numerous excellent photographs showing the
casualties, military and civilian. An editor of a prominent magazine wrote
his reporter, ³do not send any more photos of civilians.²

There are no photos of dead American soldiers that have been made available
to the American public. Further, the media has refused to show photographs
of wounded soldiers and soldiers in dire situations. This is not the way it
necessarily needs to be. When Clinton was president, for example, graphic
photographs of America casualties in Mogadishu were made available.

Revisionists abound now. You can hear them arguing that the lack of debate
was caused by the Democrats, who were not speaking out. But some Democrats
were speaking out, including Ted Kennedy, who made an impassioned plea
against the war. The Washington Post, which had published at least a million
words about the upcoming war, gave Kennedy¹s speech only 23 words of
coverage. It was in the run-up to the war that the Washington Post
editorialized in favor of the war eight times. The lone exception at the
Washington Post was E.J. Dionne.

Boehlert reminded the audience that the war against the press started long
before Iraq. President Bush was noted for his lack of press conferences.
According to Andy Card, the press is ³just another special interest.² The
Bush administration showed the low regard in which it held a press when it
repeatedly invited Jeff Gannon to press conferences. Gannon, who did not
hold any journalism credentials, was affiliated with a gay escort service.

Boehlert suggests a reason why the press did not resist the administration
on Iraq. The reporters wanted to go to Iraq for four days ³to come back as
heroes.²

As if the above information wasn¹t a lot to digest in 1 1/2 hours, the
audience also heard from two additional people who warned about government
threats being made against journalists.

The first of these speakers was Sarah Olson, a freelance journalist from
Oakland who has been subpoenaed to testify for in the prosecution of the
U.S. Army court martial of 1st Lt.Ehren Watada, the first commissioned
officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. To read of Olson¹s story in
detail, go to her site. In addition to refusing to report for duty, Watada
had the audacity to speak out against the Iraq war. For those statements, he
was charged additionally with four counts for making statements unbecoming.
Olson had interviewed Wataba, and that¹s why she was subpoenaed to Watada¹s
court-martial. According to Olson, Warada¹s court-martial hearing is coming
up in February, and she is facing felony charges if she refuses to testify.
She came to this media conference looking for money, ideas, or any other
form of support.

Olson argues that this attempt to force her to testify is eviscerating the
First Amendment. The military is ³trying to turn journalism into the
investigative arm of the government.

The second speaker is the mother of Josh Wolf, an independent journalist and
video blogger. Wolf is currently in custody in California for civil
contempt. He was incarcerated earlier this year (he¹s now been in custody
for 144 days) after resisting a subpoena to testify before a grand jury and
refusing to turn over the video he shot of a San Francisco protest against
the G8 Summit in 2005. Wolf had covered such protests in the past, and
therefore had some privileged access to the Bay Area activist community. He
is resisting this subpoena because this is an attempt to identify political
dissidents which constitutes a fishing expedition. Like Sarah Olson, Josh¹s
mother was at the convention to find any sort of assistance. To learn more,
go to his site. To read his daily blog which he updates from prison, go
here.

The solution, according to Wolf, is that the government should enact a
federal shield law that upholds the right of journalists to protect the
confidentiality of their sources. For more on protecting sources of
reporters, see the site of Reporters Without Borders