Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War

[JKD]

Anyone else see this last night? Hope this isn't a repost. I searched and didn't find anything about this here. Very good show.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwards said, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine's Jeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context."

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"

[vryhpyammoadded]

I finally got to see it and honestly think these guys put way too much emphasis on the administrations mechanations and didn’t do a good overall, balanced analysis especially reflecting on the flawed journalism itself. Still though, there were some real gems in the show that put together the pattern of evidence and hearsay for government dog wagging very well and allowed a peak into the almost blinded egotistical mindset of the MSM leadership. Too answer their questions from what I perceive.

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?:I believe it’s due to the “less is more”, “this is a money making corporation first”, “Mass marketed, hyped, targeted” ,“Looks great less filling” mass media news product they’ve provided. This sort of money first, quality second business structure has infested near everything these days. Well marketed products don’t need much substance. Still, they did address this somewhat with the cheap punditry, lack of interviewing contacts, hitting the street and what not. I wish they had of gone much deeper into these aspects.
It sounded to me as if the MSM is suffering from the same quality of data issues the intel people have had since going to automated 200 mile high photography and cheap easy listening rather than more feet on the ground.

How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? In my opinion, conflict sells and corporate media higher-ups were too cautious taking the sure bet war money rather than the risky, hearsay. The advertising profits must have been tremendous up too during and after the invasion to today. In other words, seeing all the greenbacks sure is distracting. Then again, maybe they didn't give a dam and knew this stuff would make great money making devisive pundetry during the occupation rasing questions of the wars validity. I don't know, I trust the media about as much as the government and that's not a whole lot.

How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"
Hehe, way back in the early 70’s I remember some debating about the Vietnam war going on among journalists over sticking to the droll Jack Web style “Just the facts” or sexing up a story a little. It’s that sexing up that always gets them and what I think got them again. I think the corporations who got caught up in loose reporting since Vietnam, fell into one upmanship, saw dollar signs and incrementally ratcheted up the story till its momentum got out of control. They built a journalistic Frankenstein’s monster, a viewer shark feeding frenzy and the government (not just the executive or republicans mind you) chummed the waters with pundetry from every angle. What a mess.