Washington Post Warriors

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Washington Post Warriors
By William Greider, The Nation
March 13, 2003

A generation ago, when I worked at the Washington Post, the right-wing
fringe occasionally referred to us as "Pravda on the Potomac." We reporters
were amused but also rankled. We did not see ourselves as a mouthpiece for
the government (neither, it seems, did the government). Still, the slur had
a whiff of truth. 


Washington is a company town and has its own corps of Kremlinologists who
read the Post closely every day for half-hidden clues to official
intentions. Whether the newspaper gets things right or wrong, its version of
reality will inevitably color everyone's political calculations. During the
hard going in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson confided to the editorial page editor
that the Post's support for the war was worth two divisions.


The Pravda allusion takes on ironic resonance now that the right-wingers own
the federal government and the Post's divisions are once again deployed for
war. Its editorial pages have expressed an over-the-top pre-emptive
enthusiasm, arguing the case as repetitiously as Bush and nearly as cockily
as Rumsfeld. Its platoon of battle-ready pundits attacks fiercely, with the
confidence of small boys playing tin soldiers on Mummy's carpet. Dissenting
voices are ridiculed; reluctant allies get the full-battery barrage.


But Kremlinologists have also observed, less obviously, a certain patriotic
passivity in the news columns, perhaps inhibited by the heightened emotions
of 9/11. Instead of examining the factual basis for targeting Iraq, the Post
largely framed the story line as a Washington drama of inside baseball.
Would Colin Powell hold off the Pentagon hawks and win the President's heart
and mind? Will Rumsfeld whip the CIA into line? The problem with insider
reporting is that it tends to skip over the obvious, critical questions that
the insiders do not wish to address. What exactly does Saddam Hussein have
to do with Osama bin Laden or 9/11? Instead of digging into that and a host
of other relevant questions, most reporting concentrated on war plans and
Saddam's many crimes.


We read numerous accounts of the blitzkrieg strategy Washington is devising
for Baghdad, but odd little omissions occurred. When Osama's taped message
surfaced recently, the Post story neglected to mention that the Al Qaeda
leader also denounced Saddam as being among the "infidels." When prominent
figures like Bill Clinton's Secretary ofState Madeleine Albright or retired
Gen. Anthony Zinni dissented from going to war, it was treated as no big
deal. Despite some honorable exceptions, major media generally went limp on
the march to war. The Post went star-spangled.


The shortage of critical challenges from the press (and from intimidated
Democrats) assisted the manipulation of public thinking. By relentless
repetition, Bush and his team accomplished an audacious feat of propaganda ­
persuading many Americans to redirect the emotional wounds left by 9/11,
their hurt and anger, away from the perpetrators to a different adversary.
According to a New York Times-CBS News survey, 42 percent now believe Saddam
Hussein was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center
and Pentagon. In an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe Saddam provides direct
support to Al Qaeda. The Iraqi did it, let's go get him. As a bogus rallying
cry, "Remember 9/11" ranks with "Remember the Maine" of 1898 for war with
Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 for justifying the US
escalation in Vietnam.


In the past month or so, however, my impression (shared by others) is that
the Post's news coverage has toughened considerably ­ beginning to puncture
various propaganda claims and to explore contradictions that might better
have been examined long ago. The editors and reporters may have been shaken
by the unanticipated public outrage, including from their own readers. The
newspaper's omissions, distortions and casual disparagement of antiwar
protests were prompting waves of e-mail objections. "It is tunnel-vision
coverage like yours," one message complained, "that scares off people in
mainstream America who are against the war but can't relate to the picture
you painted of its opposition."


The Post's ombudsman, former foreign editor Michael Getler, has seconded
many of the readers' complaints in his memos to the staff. As millions
marched at home and abroad, it became increasingly difficult to attribute
the antiwar uproar to what one columnist ridiculed as the "irrelevant left."
Indeed, the Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, discerned a general trend in
the media toward more aggressive and skeptical reporting. "It's about time,"
he wrote. "Whether you're for or against the war, a full-throated debate in
the media is overdue." In his usual obsequious manner, Kurtz left out his
employer. 


The Post's institutional discomfort was confirmed on Feb. 27 in a long,
semiconfessional editorial that respectfully acknowledged the angry
dissenters and attempted once again to justify the march to war, but with
less imperious certainty. The essence of the editorial board's defense was,
Hey, the Post has always been for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam, so give
us credit at least for consistency. Yet the editorial proceeded to repeat
Bush's slippery emotional logic. The world is a dangerous place, it
reminded, and we will feel better about terrorism if Saddam is taken out.
Note the leap of logic in that elision. The editors even cited the anthrax
attacks in Florida, New York and Washington. Does this mean they are adding
the anthrax letters to the indictment against Saddam? A lot of readers were
not comforted. 


It's too late for nuanced evasions, too late for the Post to reposition its
divisions to the rear. It sold this war, and now if America becomes the
author of massive violence in a war of choice, not necessity, the Post will
be implicated in the bloody consequences.


The antiwar movement will not go away once the bombing starts, but all of
its objections to this war will become vividly relevant to the news
coverage. Reporters and editors can still ask the hard questions and need
not pretend to be shocked if the US colonial governor decides to stall on
the promise of Iraqi democracy. Americans at large, I fear, are about to
lose their sense of injured innocence. Maybe the news media can lose some of
their "patriotic" deference to the warriors in charge. 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/