Tags for This Article:

Media-News (571)  Media Failure (71)  McClellan (58)  McClellan (46)  Collaborators (16) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
May 30, 2008 at 13:56:26

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined on 5/30/08:
McClellan and His Media Collaborators

by Jeff Cohen     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

No sooner had Bush’s ex-press secretary (now author) Scott McClellan accused President Bush and his former collaborators of misleading our country into Iraq than the squeals of protest turned into a mighty roar. 

 

I’m not talking about the vitriol directed at him by former White House colleagues like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer.  I’m talking about McClellan’s other war collaborators: the movers and shakers in corporate media.  The people McClellan refers to in his book as “deferential, complicit enablers” of Bush administration war propaganda.

One after another, news stars defended themselves with the tired old  myth that no one doubted the Iraq WMD claims at the time. The yarn about hindsight being 20/20 was served up more times than a Rev. Wright clip on Fox News.

Katie Couric, whose coverage on CBS of the Iraq troop surge has been almost fawning, was one of the few stars to be candid about pre-invasion coverage, saying days ago, “I think it’s one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.” She spoke of “pressure” from corporate management, not just Team Bush, to “really squash any dissent.” Then a co-host of NBC Today, she says network brass criticized her for challenging the administration.

NBC execs apparently didn’t complain when – two weeks into the invasion – Couric thanked a Navy commander for coming on the show, adding, “And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!”


This is a glorious moment for the American public. We can finally see those who abandoned reporting for cheerleading and flag-waving and cheap ratings having to squirm over their role in sending other parents’ kids into Iraq.  I say “other parents’ kids” because I never met any bigwig among those I worked with in TV news who had kids in the armed forces.

Given how TV networks danced to the White House tune sung by the Roves and Fleischers and McClellans in the first years of W’s reign, it’s fitting that it took the words of a longtime Bush insider to force their self-examination over Iraq.  Top media figures had shunned years of  well-documented criticism of their Iraq failure as religiously as they shunned war critics in 2003.   

Speaking of religious, it wasn’t until two days ago that retired NBC warhorse Tom Brokaw was able to admit on-air that Bush’s push toward invasion was “more theology than anything else.”  On day one of the war, it was anchor Brokaw who turned to an Admiral and declared, “One of the things that we don’t want to do is destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we’re going to own that country.” 

Asked this week about the charge that media transmitted war propaganda, Brokaw blamed the White House and its “unbelievable ability to control the flow of information at any time, but especially during the time that they’re preparing to go to war.” This is an old canard: The worst censors pre-war were not governments, but major outlets that chose to exclude and smear dissenting experts.

Wolf Blitzer, whose persona on CNN is that of a carnival barker, defended his network’s coverage: “I think we were pretty strong. But certainly, with hindsight, we could have done an even better job.”  Coverage might have been better if CNN news chief Eason Jordan hadn’t gotten a Pentagon “thumbs-up” on the retired generals they featured. Or if Jordan hadn’t gone on the air to dismiss a dissenting WMD expert: “Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior has really bewildered a lot of people. . . . U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility.” 

ABC anchor Charlie Gibson, the closest thing to a Fox News anchor at a big three network, took offense at McClellan: “I think the media did a pretty good job.” With the “drumbeat” coming from the administration, “it was not our job to debate them,” said Gibson.  He claimed “there was a lot of skepticism raised” about Colin Powell’s pre-war U.N. speech.  Media critic Glenn Greenwald called Gibson’s claim “one of the falsest statements ever uttered on TV“ – and made his point using Gibson’s unskeptical Powell coverage at the time.

In February 2003, there was huge mainstream media skepticism about Powell’s U.N. speech . . . overseas.  But U.S. TV networks banished antiwar perspectives in the crucial two weeks surrounding that error-filled speech.  FAIR studied all on-camera sources on the nightly ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS newscasts: Less than 1 percent – 3 out of 393 sources – were antiwar.  Only 6 percent were skeptical sources. This at a time when 60 percent of Americans in polls wanted more time for diplomacy and inspections.

I worked 10-hour days inside MSNBC’s newsroom during this period as senior producer of Phil Donahue’s primetime show (cancelled three weeks before the war while the network’s most-watched program).  Trust me: too much skepticism over war claims was a punishable offense.  I and all other Donahue producers were repeatedly ordered by top management to book panels that favored the pro-invasion side.  I watched a fellow producer get chewed out for booking a 50-50 show.

At MSNBC, I heard Scott Ritter smeared – on-air and off – as a paid mouthpiece of Saddam Hussein.  After we had war skeptic and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on the show, we learned he was on some sort of network blacklist.  

When MSNBC terminated Donahue, it was expected that we’d be replaced by a nightly show hosted by Jesse Ventura.  But that show never really launched.  Ventura says it was because he, like Donahue, opposed the Iraq invasion; he was paid millions for not appearing.  Another MSNBC star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then lost her job after criticizing the first weeks of “very sanitized” war coverage.  With every muzzling, self-censorship tended to proliferate. 

I’m no defender of Scott McClellan.  Some may say he has blood on his hands – and that he hasn’t earned any kind of redemption.

 1  |  2

 

www.jeffcohen.org

Jeff Cohen is the founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College. He founded the media watch group FAIR in 1986. For years he was an on-air pundit on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC-- as well as senior producer of MSNBC's primetime Donahue show, until it was terminated three weeks before the Iraq war. This is adapted from his new book, Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

Patricia Ormsby is an environmental and health activist living Fujinomiya, Japan. She obtained her bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Colorado in 1981 and studied Linguistics at the University of Michigan Graduate School before moving to Japan in 1984, where she has worked since as a language teacher and translator of Japanese and Russian technical documents. She hang glides and climbs mountains and has led several ecotours to Siberia, Canada and the United States....

to see more of bio, click on member name

Patricia 0rmsbyPatricia Ormsby is an environmental and health activist living Fujinomiya, Japan. She obtained her bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Colorado in 1981 and studied Linguistics at the University of Michigan Graduate School before moving to Japan in 1984, where she has worked since as a language teacher and translator of Japanese and Russian technical documents. She hang glides and climbs mountains and has led several ecotours to Siberia, Canada and the United States....

to see more of bio, click on member name

Clemency

I read Rob Kall's letter just prior to reading your article. Please forgive me for utilizing the space below your well written article to address what Rob said.

I agree with Rob that despite Mr. McClellan's clear complicity with a pathological regime this is not the time for vindictiveness. He has accomplished an enviably public repudiation of both the disastrous, murderous cabal in Washington and their corporate-run press. God help this man! He knows what happens to others that do this.

Psychopaths gather around them dupes who believe their lies, and these dupes go deeper and deeper into denial as the truth becomes more and more terrible to contemplate. I think Mr. McClellan has just started to open up. Let's encourage him and see what else he says. Throw the man a towel and invite him over. I'd say keep an eye on him, but consider that he might need a few friends at this time.

by Patricia 0rmsby (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 161 comments) on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 7:52:06 PM
 


11/3 Democrat, newly elected PCO

Hometown: Vancouver, WA

Interests include media reform, voter reform, energy conservation/consumer moderation

FOIA Gras11/3 Democrat, newly elected PCO

Hometown: Vancouver, WA

Interests include media reform, voter reform, energy conservation/consumer moderation

It's not only righties who question McClellan's motives...

...but it doesn't hurt.

If the former press secretary wanted to come to Jesus why not offer sworn testimony to Rep. Conyers, Rep. Wexler, Rep. Waxman, or any other among many Congresspersons who, unlike Speaker Pelosi, have been unwilling to let Bush & Co. probable crimes go without a proper hearing, as the Constitution requires them to do? Why did McClellan spend almost two years in silence after leaving his post to come clean? What are his plans for the blood money he will earn from sales of this book (currently the top seller on a certain predatory online bookseller)? He could have come forward much sooner but that would have left little material for his book that would not have already aired out in the industrial media complex before its release. Why not resign in protest during Bush's first term instead of waiting to be pushed out during his second?

Forgive me if I share some of McClellan's former colleagues' skepticism over the manner in which he decided to air his former employer's dirty laundry. If McClellan's claims are true then it is no less true that before he became a traitor to the Bushies he was a traitor to his country. Let us not forget the cover he gave, as press secretary, to this administration before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq. Doesn't it take a certain gall, of the unmitigated variety, to criticise the efficiacy of the very press corps that he dutifully obfuscated and intimidated?

Should his book release facilitate bringing to justice the many current and former players in the administration who carried out this blatantly illegal policy of preemptive warfare then I suppose I should reserve some gratitude but at the moment I am not in a very truth-and-reconciliation mood where he is concerned. Too little, too late.

by FOIA Gras (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 8:10:47 PM
 


A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
PrMaineA concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.

Better Late than Never

It is easy to question McClellan's motives, but whatever they are let us be grateful that finally he is willing to speak out.  I have no doubt that he will testify before congress and the fact of his book may have been necessary to make that happen.

It is hard to imagine that considerations of book-sales did not enter his mind, but it is also not hard to imagine that the act of writing the book forced McClellan to think through his experiences with the Bush Administration and to face what had happened there.  His transformation from a knee-jerk Bush supporter to someone on the other side was probably a difficult one for him, so lets not be too certain he could have made that reversal as early as 2007, much less 2004. 

by PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments) on Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 6:53:35 AM
 


houston liberal, professional, self employed, believe that liberal means social justice, economic fairness, and human rights trump economic concerns.
Houston Radicalhouston liberal, professional, self employed, believe that liberal means social justice, economic fairness, and human rights trump economic concerns.

I hate to say this, but I told "you" so

nobody in here of course, but from the beginning of the jingo war drums I was becoming more and more unpopular around town (Houston) because day after day I was telling people that it was all a pack of lies.

There were many Generals, analysts, and inspectors who said that there weren't any WMDs. It might be true that other agencies in other countries "believed" that Hussein had weapons, but there were also other people in those agencies, just like our agencies, who were skeptical.

But on it's face, the idea doesn't pass the smell test. The US had UK had Iraq surrounded for a dozen years. They dropped bombs on that country almost daily. A person would have to be pretty naive, or stupid, or more likely, willfully ignorant, to think that evey sophisticated survelliance technique ever invented wasn't being used - counting vehicles and their movements, troops, military buildings, etc. That there weren't spies on the ground. This consideration along with the few voices of opposition that managed to get out made it pretty clear to me.

And then there's history. Why wasn't Hussein tried for his worst atrocities? Gassing Kurds? Because the year after he did it the US doubled its military support of Hussein. The US helped Hussein rise to power in the first place.

Just like the US installed the Shah, Diem and Pinochet. Just like the US supports Mussharaff, Mubarek and the Saudi Monarchy now. Just like it supported Pol Pot, Suharto, Marcos, Branco, Somoza, Montt, D'Abusson, Noreiga, and Duvalier, and many more.

The reality is the US has a long history of doing business with despots and cutthroats. So whenever you hear that military action is aimed at liberation, you KNOW that it is a lie. The ONLY reason one nation attacks another nation is for resources.

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 2:05:53 AM
 


Retired NASA systems engineer for Earth Science data systems. I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth and consider Nationalism and other such beliefs which separate ourselves from each other are outmoded and are detrimental to the well being of the earth and all of the creatures that inhabit it.
Philip PeaseRetired NASA systems engineer for Earth Science data systems. I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth and consider Nationalism and other such beliefs which separate ourselves from each other are outmoded and are detrimental to the well being of the earth and all of the creatures that inhabit it.

I call them un-American

The United States of America is founded on the principle of checks and balances among the three branches of Government plus an independent (free) press that can and will inform the citizens of wrongdoing by their representatives in Government.  In regards to the declaration of war against Iraq the main-stream media failed to uncover and/or report the truth.

Why did they fail to uncover the truth?  This is the question they should be asking themselves; but  instead their response seems to be that we don't think we did a bad job at all.  Just the fact that the UN Weapons Inspector found no Weapons of Mass Destruction should have resulted in the news media seriously questioning the Government's claims.  I am sure there were reporters who seriously questioned the claim; so who directed that the story that was published was not questioning the claims and raising doubts?

The fact of the matter is that those persons who directed that their stories ignore any doubts about the claims of the administration failed to live up to the trust that the public expects.  The press became a propaganda tool for the administration to con the American public into believing their lies.

The question has to be asked whether the news media were conned by the administration or were they complicit in carrying out the con?  From what some reporters have said (about being coerced into what and how the stories were presented) the evidence is that the news media was part of a conspiricy to defraud the American public. 

by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments) on Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 2:23:27 PM
 

 

6 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

NEW IDEAS ON RESTORING U. S. ECONOMY, for the Next Secretary of Commerce, William Blaine Richardson III by Stephen Fox

Detroit vs. Wall Street: The Trillion Dollar Class War by Cameron Salisbury

Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore by Michael Moore

SO SAY THE BANKERS: Learn to Love the 'AMERO' by Patrick Henningsen

No Bailout Oversight: Bush Stalls Inspector General Selection by Allen L Roland

Credit Card Crisis Is Here / Derivatives Next by Allen L Roland

Paulson shoots another arrow into the heart of the Economy by Andrew Hughes

Odetta Sings Her First Song, from Way Up Above Us by muservin

Leading lives of quiet desperation this holiday season by Sheryl Letzgus McGinnis

Young inexperienced doctors learn the Culture of Dishonesty at the VA by Warren Wells

Go To Top 50 Most Popular