Features » May 12, 2008

Collapse of the Fourth Estate

By Jon Whiten

In March, on the five-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the nation’s major news outlets reflected on the war and what led us to the half-decade mark. But few evaluated their own roles in the disaster that has maimed countless Iraqis and U.S. troops, killed hundreds of thousands and, according to economists Linda Blimes and Joseph Stiglitz, could ultimately cost up to $3 trillion.

Fortunately, two new books do examine the media’s role. Greg Mitchell’s So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq (Union Square, March 2008) lays out a timeline of the media’s damning missteps, while When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina (University of Chicago, May 2007), co-authored by W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence and Steven Livingston, shows how these missteps are not aberrations, but byproducts of the American press.

In So Wrong, Mitchell, the editor at Editor & Publisher, collects and updates 79 of his columns from January 2003 to November 2007. The result: a history of the war as told through the mainstream media prism. Readers are painfully reminded of all the “turning points” cited by war proponents and their counterparts in the press — from “Mission Accomplished” to Gen. David Petraeus’ troop surge.

Mitchell offers gut-wrenching stories about the war that many Americans likely didn’t read about, much less see on television, such as the story of 27-year-old Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson, who shot herself with her service rifle after objecting to Army interrogation techniques in a prison in Tal Afar, in northwestern Iraq.

His columns on soldier suicides and on “solatia” — the U.S. military’s practice of financially compensating Iraqis for physical damage or a loss of life — are haunting, leaving us to wonder why the general public didn’t see more work of this caliber.

But while So Wrong describes the who, what and where of the media’s Iraq meltdown, it doesn’t offer much insight into the why. Aside from Mitchell’s powerful introduction, which argues the press didn’t approach the Bush administration’s claims with enough skepticism, he doesn’t elaborate on the structural reasons the media fell down on the job.

That’s where When the Press Fails is useful. The book, though written in an academic tone, offers a blistering critique of the “operating practices of American journalism,” which the authors say “have grown entwined with power and officials.”

The authors, all professors of political science or public affairs, argue that America’s “semi-independent” press is largely reactive, working within the “sphere of official consensus.” Journalists cover what the administration does and says, and how critics inside-the-beltway respond. In other words, political controversy, rather than public deliberation, is the name of the game.

When elite opinion shapers engage in vigorous and substantive debate, the authors say the press does a good job at reflecting that and nurturing a deliberative public. But when the public needs it most — say, when critical debate within government is most limited, like in the run-up to the Iraq War — the press often fails.

Both books explore the rise in critical coverage as the war dragged on, noting that by summer 2006, there was more solid reporting on the horrors of the Iraq War, including blockbuster stories like the Washington Post’s exposé of CIA black sites and the New York Times’ reporting on domestic spying.

But despite the more aggressive stance, the lack of coverage of two recent events proves the press is still failing on Iraq, even if it has improved overall. In March, both the Pentagon memo refuting an al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein link (again) and the Winter Soldier veterans’ hearings in Washington, D.C., got virtually no play in the mainstream press, with few exceptions.

So, is American journalism simply doomed?

Not quite.

Both books thankfully offer a way forward. Mitchell suggests that journalists be held accountable. He notes that “few of those who promoted the war … have lost any standing in the media.” He also advises the press to be rigorously skeptical of and fully critique dubious official claims.

Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston argue that a “new news standard” based on four key principles — from serving the public interest to using techniques other than political conflict to explore government policy — could foster a more democratic press. They admit that a rethinking of the journalistic profession would be “fraught with difficulty,” but note that the current faulty standards didn’t magically appear, but were the product of media self-examination.

As the media’s poor performance on the Iraq War makes clear, another such self-exam is due, stat.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Journalists and journalism have become suspect with respect to timidity trumping temerity. If ever a time has come for the “yellow journalism” and “muckraking” of Upton Sinclair and his contemporaries to be the model of journalistic fortitude, not rectitude, it is now. The banalities of “news” advanced as perceptive, insightful, cogent and purposeful are as evident as the increase in volume for a tv commercial’s soundtrack. The “mild-mannered reporter” is no longer just a cartoon character’s disguise, it is a profession’s countenance of the very thing that mocks its pupose, a mild manner that reveals more than its feigns. How “nice” and “polite” and “respectful” and “respectable” have journalilsts become, now that the dumbing down of America is leaving no one behind and reading newspapers its denouement. Are there any women and men in the room worth their credentials? Or are we to presume that journalists suckle us for our own good? PBS coddles corporate sponsors, publicly-traded news publishing stock is unattractive, and merely a few magazines reflect serious thought for serious readers seeking content of civic vigor. To say that U.S. journalism must own up to its part in the trumpeting for revenge and saber-rattling of self-delusion in the march to oil’s drum is to say that it’s getting hotter on this planet. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows; you don’t need a journalist to tell you that what should be written can’t be published. It’s less a matter of “Collapse of The Fourth Estate” than that the three Estates of The Realm have embedded journalism so deeply in their vested interests as to smother it with sanctions that bode well for the profession, ill for its calling. When will the profession get mad as hell and not take it anymore?

  Posted by Bud Wizer on May 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured They Can’t Go Home Again
Dirty Smoke Signals
Rap the Casbah

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Jon Whiten

• Ivory Tower Inc.
  For those of us who have flirted with a life in academia, Marc… morePosted on July 25, 2008