Don't say we didn't try to tell you

The media has been assailed, rightfully so, for being wussies when it came to reportage building up to the war with Iraq.

Here’s an interview I did which ran on in the Daily News March 20, 2003, two days before “Shock and Awe.” Obviously, it changed no one’s mind, but I offer it, on this Memorial Day, as an effort to reduce the number of those planted at Arlington Cemetery, a chance to demonstrate that the media, which seemed out of touch in those days, actually did care:

Daily News of Los Angeles (CA)

NATION'S PRESS GUILTY OF MYTHOLOGIZING WAR?

March 20, 2003
Tag: 0303200065

Section: U
Edition: Valley

rop
Page: U8
Source: David Kronke
Staff Writer

The New York Times reporter Chris Hedges has covered wars in the Falkland Islands, El Salvador and Bosnia, as well as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the first Gulf War (where he eschewed the prevalent pool reports and was captured for eight days by the Iraqi National Guard). His experiences and reflections are gathered in the book ``War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'' (Public Affairs; $23), which was a National Book Critics Circle Awards finalist. ``It will rattle jingoists, pacifists, moralists, nihilists, politicians and professional soldiers equally,'' said one review.

Like others, Hedges is concerned about how the media, particularly TV news divisions, have covered the debate about Iraq and how they will carry through in the impending Gulf War, which may have already started by the time you read this.

So far, critics haven't given the media high marks. Charles Kupchack, former member of the National Security Council and author of ``The End of the American Era,'' which argues that the United States will in the coming years alienate itself from its former allies, decries the lack of debate on Iraq. ``One of the things we've always been reassured about this country is that it's a marketplace of ideas,'' he says. ``If we go to war, that's fine, but we should have all sides of the debate exposed. But that's not happening. Democracy is not being served.''

In February, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., on the floor of the Senate, leveled a similar complaint: ``There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. ... We are truly sleepwalking through history.''

Rick Ellis of AllYourTV.com suggested that a few reasons news networks have shied away from questioning the Bush Administration's policies is that they are assuming it will be a short war, ``so they're already planning their aftermath stories. Their thinking goes, 'War's gonna happen anyway - why waste time on whether we should be in it?'

(Interjection: What was deleted from this story at the time was the fact that MSNBC had cancelled Phil Donahue’s show from its schedule, because its executives were worried that Donahue’s anti-war concerns would be construed as anti-American at a time when most new networks were flying American flags and championing destroying Iraq. Still, this story did actually run in the Daily News at a time when such stories were pretty much considered, in light of W’s “You’re with us or with the terrorists” propaganda, heresy.)

Hedges won't be in the Persian Gulf this time. He's lost too many friends and colleagues in battle, he says, and besides, ``I'm old.'' He knew he had had enough when he found himself, at age 42, trying to keep up with 17-year-old Palestinians with bags of Molotov cocktails fleeing from Israeli snipers. He spoke with the Daily News last week about his book and how he sees the media's coverage:

Q: According to your book, the media is simply doing its job in a time of warfare by stoking the fires. But how soon before a war does the media have a responsibility to focus on honest reportage of the pros and cons of the impending battle, before it gets absorbed in the breast-beating? It seems there never was a period of skepticism with Iraq.

A: I don't think the media has much of a period of skepticism. It's better at parroting back jingoism. That's become part of the war effort, where you see Dan Rather saying, where do I sign up, where you see TV anchors wearing flag lapel pins. There's a real sense that they believe they're doing their bit for the country. Those people who function as social critics find that in the rush of war, they're unable to resist the call to arms. Those who do resist find themselves lonely and reviled.

If these outlets looked at their role as being one of a public service, of course they'd examine the issues. But since they no longer see it that way - they just see another act in the circus tent - they're not going to do anything.

But the credibility of the press suffers disastrously. The lie of war is the lie of omission. There's a huge disconnect between the soldiers, who know the reality of the situation, and seeing how it was covered.

Q: How much does the simplistic reporting on the behalf of TV news reporters make it difficult for people to digest serious reporting?

A: It makes it difficult. People don't want to ingest it. People don't want to hear it. It's so much fun, while the economy is crumbling and we're getting stripped of our civil rights, to walk down the street, beating war drums.

There are two medias now. There's print - The New York Times, Washington Post - and they're pretty good. And then there's broadcast media, and that's just become entertainment, all about commercials and ratings. There was never any hope of any significant contributions in reportage from them from the beginning. CNN knows full the mythic narrative of war - they're selling the narcotic of war, and it's very good business - it's how (William Randolph) Hearst built his empire. Broadcast is shameless. There is not even an attempt made to report the facts; news is judged in terms of its entertainment value. Those at The New York Times who raised the right questions were doomed from the start.

But we'll have a horrible hangover when it's over. Or we'll have a collective amnesia. But it's lonely and hard not to join the party.

Q: Were you surprised at how the White House press corps sort of rolled over at Bush's press conference?

A: It was pretty typical of what happens in wartime. Wars always begin with the murder of innocence. To question the cause is interpreted as sacrilege - that's always how wars begin. Again, this was no exception.

Q: So to paraphrase Aaron Sorkin: We can't handle the truth?

A: That's correct. The myth of war exhilarates us: It's powerful, noble and good. The reality is, it's dirty and venal and forces us to confront our capacity for evil. But it's more pleasant to imbibe the elixir.

We were pretty ignorant before, now we're really ignorant. But I wouldn't romanticize the past (coverage and protests of war) too much. In wartime, everyone falls into lockstep. It's definitely worse now, but it's always bad in times of war.”

On March 22, “Shock and Awe” began.