Interesting read about lack of questioning by the media in buildup of Iraq war

[daddyphatsacs]

The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story
Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often Didn't Make Front Page

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2004; Page A01

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

A photo released by the CIA shows vials of what the agency called potential biological weapons, recovered from an Iraqi scientist's residence. (Central Intelligence Agency via AP)

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

When national security reporter Dana Priest was addressing a group of intelligence officers recently, she said, she was peppered with questions: "Why didn't The Post do a more aggressive job? Why didn't The Post ask more questions? Why didn't The Post dig harder?"

Several news organizations have cast a withering eye on their earlier work. The New York Times said in a May editor's note about stories that claimed progress in the hunt for WMDs that editors "were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper." Separately, the Times editorial page and the New Republic magazine expressed regret for some prewar arguments.

Michael Massing, a New York Review of Books contributor and author of the forthcoming book "Now They Tell Us," on the press and Iraq, said: "In covering the run-up to the war, The Post did better than most other news organizations, featuring a number of solid articles about the Bush administration's policies. But on the key issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the paper was generally napping along with everyone else. It gave readers little hint of the doubts that a number of intelligence analysts had about the administration's claims regarding Iraq's arsenal."

The front page is a newspaper's billboard, its way of making a statement about what is important, and stories trumpeted there are often picked up by other news outlets. Editors begin pitching stories at a 2 p.m. news meeting with Downie and Managing Editor Steve Coll and, along with some reporters, lobby throughout the day. But there is limited space on Page 1 -- usually six or seven stories -- and Downie said he likes to feature a broad range of subjects, including education, health, science, sports and business.

Woodward, for his part, said it was risky for journalists to write anything that might look silly if weapons were ultimately found in Iraq. Alluding to the finding of the Sept. 11 commission of a "groupthink" among intelligence officials, Woodward said of the weapons coverage: "I think I was part of the groupthink."

Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration, some of those involved in the prewar coverage felt compelled to say the paper's shortcomings did not reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White House. Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists."

Story Continued........

[AKAKBUCK]

This is an interesting retrospective... And I don't want to get into specifics but I think this a little bit of a hidsight is 20/20 response.

What if the intel had been exactly the same, but the HAD found, lets say 10 hidden scuds with Chem warheads. (Certainly a reasonable little cache of terror weapons if not strategically significant.)

What would they be saying now?

They wouldn't be saying a damn thing. Why?

Because its not the media's fault they didn't "alert the public" to this 'lie.' (and that's the implication).

The reason the doubts weren't front page news is becaseu there weren't any 'doubts' per se. There were articles outlining the lack of hard eviidence of WMD's in Iraq... in fact... I read one on foxnews.com (you read that correctly) from the summer of '02, pointing out that exact shortfall. (I'll try to dig that up later, and edit it here)

BUT-- It wasn't front page news, because there is one thing that was true then that isn't true now. And that's the fact that Saddam Hussein was a pathological, genocidal, lunatic with a penchant for summarily executing his own people, gassing Kurds, Invading (and gassing) Iran, invading and looting Kuwait, shooting missiles at Israel, and.... well you get the idea.

So, while there were questions about the presence of WMD's... there was also this other factor hanging over everyone that Ole Saddam had possessed and use these weapons before... and really hadn't done anything to convince anyone that he had --all of the sudden-- become a first class benevolent despotic ruler.

But guess what... Saddam's gone... and by-gones are by-gones.
No need to worry about him.. he's just disappeared... so its easy to judge witheout the spectre of Saddam... because... well he's not a reality anymore.

But what really was the source of fear of WMD's... Them magically appearing... (I doubt Iraq had Nerve Agent before Saddam showed up) or the crazy MF running the country. If you want to say that we were lied to about WMD's, fine... but the real 'threat' is awaiting trial by his countrymen.

[tibor75]

I'm confused. I thought it was clear to everybody with a pulse that the media has an obvious liberal bias and would therefore attack Dubya and his views at every turn. Something doesn't add up here.

[daddyphatsacs]

If you want to say that we were lied to about WMD's, fine... but the real 'threat' is awaiting trial by his countrymen

I agree AKA, but the article is questioning the basis for going to war. We were told many, many times that Iraq had WMD's so the US was going to go in a put a stop to it all. Why didn't the Bush administration just say "Saddam is a tyrant, and a threat to national security, we are going to remove him from power"? I'm sure you could answer my question the same way that I will, because he would not have had the support of the American people without specific reasons which turned out to be fabricated after the fact.

I understand that Saddam was a [censored]ing psycho, but that isn't the point here. The point is about the buildup of war and the truth. We were specifically told that Iraq had these weapons and this was the sole reason that we were going to war. I think that the story got changed after the fact.

[AKAKBUCK]

"Saddam is a tyrant, and a threat to national security, we are going to remove him from power"?

Do you sincerely think that this wasn't pointed out ad nauseum?

Besides... WMD's don't kill people... psycho's with WMD's kill people.

We were specifically told that Iraq had these weapons and this was the sole reason that we were going to war. I think that the story got changed after the fact.

I don't seem to remember anyone saying 'sole' reason. That's ridiculous.

You're the one changing the story after the fact.

Dude- What you're describing is the following:

[Conference]

Press Secretary:

"Thanks For Coming, The President has few words, after which there will be no questions."

Dubya:

"Good Afternoon, Iraq... has... Weapons of Mass Destruction. FIRE!"

[daddyphatsacs]

"Good Afternoon, Iraq... has... Weapons of Mass Destruction. FIRE!"

You are pretty damn close there man, good description.

I don't seem to remember anyone saying 'sole' reason. That's ridiculous

AKA, so you are stating that the Bush administration cited other reasons for going to war with Iraq without including WMDs in the conversation? I am curious to know what those conversations were, and I would love to read a few.