The Bullying of the Press

I’ve just been interviewed by Jose Pagliery, a student at the Florida International University's School of Journalism for a documentary on the Downing St Memos. I say memos because while the initial focus among the bloggers and web newspapers which drew them to the attention of the US people was on just one memo, the minutes of a meeting of Tony Blair’s war cabinet in July 2002, there were in fact eight. I reported on six of the memos while working at the Daily Telegraph in September 2004. I then moved to the Sunday Times, where I obtained the other two memos, the minutes of that war cabinet meeting and the briefing paper for those attending.

Jose made me think about an interesting point, precisely why did the US newspapers take so long to pick up on the story the memos told? I know this has been a major issue for many Americans but, although I was obviously aware of it, I didn’t take too much time to think about it. I was too busy investigating other aspects of the memos, taking the story forward.

So what’s the answer to Jose’s question? First off, let’s say straight up that journalists hate following other people’s stories. It’s an admission of failure. They will often play down the importance of a rival’s story or knock it down completely rather than admit they missed something good. But the memos were so momentous in what they told us about how Bush and Blair went to war, and just as importantly about the criminal lack of preparation for the aftermath, that they surely had to be reported.

By and large the US media decided it was old news. Not to the readers, it seems. There was of course an argument, made by most of those who defended the decisions not to publish, that the major US newspapers had already covered the way in which the administration lied to take us to war. But those reports had come from unnamed sources. The reporters themselves knew they could trust the sources, that they were copper-bottomed, and had to be anonymous because to talk openly would see them sacked or even jailed. But the readers were understandably not sure what to make of it, and when George W Bush dismissed the claims, they were more inclined to believe their president, than someone who was not even prepared to put his or her name to the allegations they were making.

But the memos were entirely different. They were documents from the heart of the British government, the Bush administration’s closest ally. They were not only “the smoking gun” that proved all the lies; they also proved the lack of planning for the aftermath; the fraudulent use of the UN to make the war legal; and – together with other evidence – the way in which the allies began the war in the summer of 2002, ramping up the allied air patrols over southern Iraq into a full-scale air war, months before they went to the UN or Congress to get backing for war.

We don’t need to go into the way the story had spread across the web by the bloggers and internet newspapers who demanded to know why the mainstream media wasn’t running the story. We know all that. But it is often difficult as a reporter to persuade the editor a story needs to be run, particularly if others are saying it is nothing new. It took time, but led by very good reporters on the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Associated Press, the memos did actually get widely reported. The Post even had me on their website answering questions on the memos.

Others still held out, continuing to claim there was nothing new in the memos. I suspect there was a large degree of arrogance among some of the journalists involved, strikingly similar to the arrogance many Europeans detect in the way that America acts under this administration. US journalists had already done the job and this was just British journalists catching up, that was the nub of it and it was clearly apparent in a piece the New York Times eventually carried on the memos. You’ll note that it claims as its main point that the ninth memo, the briefing paper for that July meeting, says no decision has been made on whether to go to war. If you look at the actual text, the memo actually says no political decision has been made on what military plan to use and that the Prime Minister agreed at Crawford in April 2002 to go to war, so the British needed to "create the conditions" which would make the war legal under international law. [For a full summary of the most important details in the memos, and the only place where you can see the complete text and reproductions of the front pages of the actual documents go to my website.]

The New York Times report also made the rather pathetic suggestion that somehow I was giving the story to the Post before I gave it to the Sunday Times. I had heard about the rivalry between the two newspapers but that seemed to be taking it to ridiculous levels. I had also heard about the well-publicised willingness of the New York Times to apologise for any errors of fact. So I sent an email to the Public Editor, who had been critical of the newspaper’s Washington bureau for its lack of coverage of the memos, pointing out the errors. I received two machine-generated emails telling me my complaint was being dealt with and nothing since. If anyone from the New York Times wants to respond now they can comment on the bottom of this blog. I’m done with trying to contact them.

But the New York Times, one of the greatest newspapers in the world, or so I’ve always thought, seems to me to epitomize a problem that for a long time was common among US newspapers, with the very honorable exception of the Knight-Ridder group. In the wake of 9/11, the US media were initially prevented from any criticism of the administration, just like the Democrats, by a feeling that everyone had to rally round the flag. Then when the need to criticize became unavoidable, they were cowed by administration claims that it helped the terrorists.

That has finally gone and the past few months have been good ones for US newspapers with important reports from journalists like Dana Priest of the Washington Post on rendition and secret prisons; Walter Pincus of the Post on domestic military intelligence operations and of course Eric Lichtblau and Jim Risen and of the New York Times on illegal wiretapping. The last report though was held back for a year because the President, the man who was actually breaking the law, asked them not to publish because it would be damaging to national security. There is nothing in their report that would have told the terrorists something they didn’t know, nothing that was damaging to national security at all. The terrorists already know we are listening, or trying to listen, to their telephone calls and reading their emails. The President was just bullying the press, and he is not alone.

There were many liberals who rejoiced whenJudy Miller was sent to jail. This was a big mistake. It set an unwelcome precedent and other reporters could now face similar moves. Some editors have held back from telling their readers what is going on for fear that their reporters might end up in jail rather than give up a source. The New York Times is holding something back from the wiretapping story. It may be that this piece of information really is damaging to national security, but given their willingness to hold back on the main thrust of the story, which is not at all damaging to national security, for more than a year, how can we be sure of that? There is something grotesque about Bush saying that his administration is setting “a forward strategy for freedom” around the world while it is attempting at the same time to bully the US press back into submission at home. I don’t for one moment believe it will succeed. But none of us can afford to be complacent. The last thing we need is a return to the dark days in the wake of 9/11.

Comments

[Linda Jack]

As ever - Mick Smith is the master of the universe in terms of analysis! Sometimes I feel inspired to go kick ass, other times totally depressed...............so what now?

[rimone]

thank you for writing this.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Is this not also a debate about what we expect from a) Government Information Services and b) a 'Free' Press?

Probably many of your readers will take a fairly sophisticated view as to the accuracy and objectivity of most reporting - although let's recognise the extreme difficulty of achieving either.

The Press (and other media) now rely very largely on 'source' material. The tradition of travelling correspondents reporting from the spot and providing their own analysis and opinion (albeit subjective) has diminished to minimal levels. This has led to the symbiotic (some might say parasitic) relationships which are evident in the management of news. And it has to be said that most newspapers do routinely manifest their own biases, both in their content and their editorial policies. Superficiality of reporting and comment has become acceptable as a direct result of the demand for the telegenic.

I do not think it is fair or realistic to expect the Press to be entirely objective in its reporting. One of the great strengths of a 'free' Press is its diversity and occasional contradiction. The Press has always found itself faced with difficult decisions as to whether particular stories should be published, and jounalists or editors - sometimes proprietors - have made their decisions based upon a whole raft of considerations. Perhaps sometimes those considerations have actually been whether publishing is in the interests of the public, but let's not be too silly about this, eh?

As to Government Information Services - well who in his/her right mind would unquestioningly accept their pronouncements? Regrettably information issued by Government departments is now largely regarded as political. And Civil Servants are now regarded as pawns or active paticipants in the political information war.

So the difficulty for all of us now is to find sources of information which are actually timely, accurate and - as far as is possible - unbiased. Maybe blogs, such as this, are one answer. But I also regret that Academia has not taken a stronger intellectual position in public rebuttal or, at least, in contrasting the official garbage with the hard facts. Perhaps, though, that is yet another can of worms........

[Eric A. Smith]

If only it were as relatively tame as mere bullying. In fact, the Pentagon openly declared its intent to attack any "non-imbedded" (i.e. influence-free) journalists three years ago. Read about it -- and more -- here:

http://aliberaldose.blogspot.com/2005/08/bushco-primer-silencing-critics.html

[pal]

Because money seems to be the whole point of war..Follow the money..How many editors and media got rich from lieing to us again and again....Many greedy scum will destroy america for money..Yes they cower, but 1.4 billion to media to lie to us is going to be their downfall...We dont believe our own govt. and we dont believe our media..We trust foreign media before our suck up media..We used to have a media that uncovered corruption, now we have a media that benifits and covers up corruption...They did it to themselves..

[Reg]

The American mainstream media sold out to corporate interests early in the first Bush campaign. They became totally complicit in shilling for the Bush/PNAC policies from the war to the environment.

The under reported and unreported news cannot be found anywhere in the US media...most particularly not in the network 'news' progams on American television, where, sadly, most Americans get their information.

Ergo, the alternatinve news sources on the Internet,.... expemplified by sites such as
http://TvNewsLIES.org

[Joseph Hill]

The 'liberal' press in the USA (like everyone else in the USA) bends over backward to prove that they aren't liberal at all. In order to accomplish this, they become ever more 'cautious' and ever more gutless and, finally....ever more conservative. The 'bully boys' have won!

[D Grace Reid]

See also: Write What You're Told
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/smithtel/writetold.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket

See also: Christine Amanpour
CNN War Reporting Intimidated by FOX and Bush Administration
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

There's more going on here than most journalists are willing to divulge.... who has been threatened, who has been fired, who has been forced to retract news that exposes the illegality of the war in Iraq, and the planting of stories, manipulation of media, etc?

Keller and Sulzberger of the New York Times have a lot to answer for.

The last report though was held back for a year because the President, the man who was actually breaking the law, asked them not to publish because it would be damaging to national security. There is nothing in their report that would have told the terrorists something they didn’t know, nothing that was damaging to national security at all. The terrorists already know we are listening, or trying to listen, to their telephone calls and reading their emails.

The story on illegal warrantless domestic spying was ready to go before the Nov. 2004 election. In kowtowing to the Bush admin. the NYT fascilitated an illegal appropriation of power by the White House, and if they had printed then what we know now, the results of the 2004 election would have been different.

They were ordered not to run the story, not once but twice. They only ran the story December 2005 because James Risen's book was about to be published -- they were about to be scooped by one of their own journalists.

This is not to say that the NYT is not fighting the good fight. Last week the NYT sued the Pentagon for illegal domestic spying documents...

Curiouser and curiouser.....