Journalistic Duties and the Iraq WarBy Sarah M. Ryck

In March 2003, the United States began a war on Iraq. The nation’s support however, was misguided by the lack of skepticism and objectivity on behalf of the journalist who yielded to the Bush administration and the restriction of information on the government’s behalf. Journalists have a First Amendment obligation to function as the watchdog for their audience. As a result, lack of questioning has led the U.S. into a war based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terrorist connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Regardless of those that may place blame upon the government for limiting journalists and believe the press did what they could at the time, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor that journalistic duties and first amendment obligations were not adequately carried out. According to the court case Associated Press v. United States, 1945, journalists are obligated and expected to do what they can to protect the citizens of the U.S from influence of the state. In the court’s ruling it is found that the “First Amendment assumes that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public,”(Wolfe, 38). The First Amendment guarantees “the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” It is sufficient to say then that this concept of press freedom acts as a defense against governmental influence. In fact, one of the reasons the forefathers of the U.S instilled such unequivocal First Amendment freedoms, including free press, was to build in yet another set of checks and balances to the government (Wolfe, 39).

By becoming a journalist one is expected to report news stories that are free from government in this case, the Bush Administration’s prior restraint. In order for democracy to function, the press needs to prove they are reliable for providing the information citizens need to make informed decisions regarding everyday life (Wolfe, 39).

In a democracy, it is also essential that governing citizens are properly informed to ensure democratic governance continues. Journalism must serve citizens so that they may resist overbearing governmental influence. Journalism should be “committed to telling the truth without fear or favor. It is…the oxygen…of democracy,” (Wolfe, 39). The war taking place in Iraq presently is conducted in the U.S. citizens’ names. These citizens expect journalists to fulfill their constitutional function and defend against attempts by the government to shape their reporting and therefore the citizens’ stance. The press has no responsibility towards the government to help them win the war (Von Hoffman, 40). Journalists need to defend citizens from a government capable of deluding them into a war where peoples’ lives will inevitably be lost (Wolfe, 40).

In the months leading up to the war in Iraq and the subsequent events that followed, it is obvious that journalists did not implement their expected First Amendment obligations. This, at least in part, may be due to the restrictions the government placed upon reporters. In the months before the war the Bush Administration could easily shut

Writing SampleResearch & Position PaperIona College MCO 300-EA

April 27, 2009

2

out journalists who prodded too hard by labeling them as unpatriotic. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer advised “people had better watch what they say,” (Massing, preface VI). For journalists who aim to function as the check and balance on the government being labeled as unpatriotic is one of the worst things they could be labeled as. As a result, many journalists and media as a whole experienced the chilling effect, where journalists are prevented from saying or acting in a certain manner out of fear of penalty (Massing, prefaceVII).

Journalists were also forced to overcome lack of open questioning by the President. The few press conferences the Commander in Chief did hold were often scripted. Staged, with journalists who would submit to asking the easy questions handed out by the administration. The White House was not beyond using the threat of denied access to reprimand journalists who may present the more difficult questions traveling outside the predetermined material. For reporters assigned to the White House this threat of denied access was crippling. To be covering the White House and have no access meant having no interviews, access to special events, leaks or essential tips (Massing, preface VII).

At the Coalition Media Center at Saliyah military base in Doha, Qatar, the limitations upon journalists continued. If reporters were to knock on the UK press office door, an officer would open and answer questions or check facts. If one was to knock upon the U.S office door, there would be no answer. Instead, one would be required to call and leave a request with the officer on duty. Rarely would requests be answered (Massing, 4). At Centcom’s Coalition Media Center often the questions asked by journalists from other countries were more informative then the answers given. Jim Wilkinson, Centcom’s manager, would often avoid journalists who were thought insufficient in their patriotism and support of the war. According to Michael Massing’s Now They Tell Us, Wilkinson cautioned to a correspondent that he would be added to a “list” along with his fellow reporters at his paper if he continued to pursue evidence for his skepticism (Massing, 7).

The Bush Administration was not the first to develop the notion to limit or control the press, but his administration did take the notion to a whole new level never experienced before. They employed aids to guard him and the administrations message so that the smallest possible deviation would occur. To demonstrate a consensus, though there was not one (Congressional vote of 296 to 133, and in the senate 77 to 23), the administration created the “Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002” ( Ravi, 47). There was also a massive public relations campaign going on to convince U.S. citizens there were weapons of mass destruction and connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda (Massing, Preface iX). John Rendon, a self-proclaimed “information warrior and a perception manager,” conducted a world wide propaganda campaign. He would assemble teams who would distribute information to allied nations to convey fixed messages to the determined audience. His goal was for these messages to eventually be carried over to the U.S (Bamford, online).

There are laws prohibiting the Bush Administration from circulating government propaganda inside the U.S. however, there is nothing stopping it from spreading

messages it know will return. In a congressional report, it is said that the Pentagon feels it is the communication and information technologies that “control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare,” (Bamford, online). From 2000 to 2004 The Rendon Group, responsible for perception and information management with access to the some of the classified and top secret information, had signed approximately thirty-five contracts with the U.S Defense Department worth up to $100 million. One way the group claims to “maintain situational awareness” is by creating a news-wire collection system named Livewire (Bamford, online). The group is able to tell what will air by numerous news programs, or will be published in 195 newspapers in 43 counties in as many as 15 languages. This allows them to plant or create stories that will counteract the ones they know will be predominately presented (Bamford, online).

Can all the blame be placed on journalists for their lack of skepticism, truth-telling, and questioning? According to Nicholas Von Hoffman in In the War Whorehouse, there are two main reasons the journalists covering the war in Iraq did not cover the entire story. First, he sights “the lazy intellectual torpor afflicting not a few American journalists,” Second, the embarrassment print and broadcast media would face as they suddenly realize what they have been reporting on for some time now was all entertainment or previously thought out and pre-packaged by the government (Von Hoffman, 37). In the article, Von Hoffman notes the lack of American journalistic values as the truth behind the Private Jessica Lynch rescue comes to light. The U.S. Army Rangers who were thought to risk their lives to save this American soldier actually were never in any real danger whatsoever. American journalists refused to acknowledge the unethical reporting that took place. It was Canada’s Toronto Star who reported the doctors treating Lynch were not keeping her against her own will. In fact, the doctors were doing everything they could to help Lynch heal. According to the Toronto Star “the so-called rescue was essentially a Hollywood-style stunt.” (Von Hoffman, 38). Journalists refused to press the subject because once again they feared the title of unpatriotic. Apparently, journalists feel that pushing difficult questions and truth-telling seem to be beneficial but only in times when things seem to be going well. Once the war began there was an overwhelming drop in the New York Times questioning of the war justification (Von Hoffman, 60). Even before the war the lack of skepticism is overwhelming. Outrageously false intelligence and known unreliable sources were carelessly accepted often times embraced by mass amounts of members of the American media. In instances that journalists employed skepticism and reliable sources the articles were often pushed into the depths of the newspaper where they received significantly less attention then the articles singing the praises of the administration’s perception management strategies.

Walter Pincus wrote an article based on that fact that the government’s evidence for WMD were “circumstantial and even shaky as it is further scrutinized,” (Massing, 68). On March 16, 2003 the article was printed. Only the article was printed as many asserting skepticism, inside the Washington Post on page A17. The article that ran was also a edited and toned down version of the original ( Massing, 68).

4

The highly respected New York Times even noted the lack of skepticism journalists employed surrounding the war in Iraq and on May 26, 2004 they issued an apology. The newspaper apologized for reporting so strongly in favor of the administration’s claim on WMD and the Iraq war. They noted “ a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been…we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining claims,” ( Massing, Preface III). It is obvious that the press could have practiced more vigorous news gathering and fact checking, and a much higher level of skepticism. It is also essential that the journalists covering war scrutinize evidence and assertions (Ravi, 46). Following the May 26 apology the New York Times public editor said in his column on May 30, 2004 that the lack of occupational responsibilities and ethical motivations in journalistic practices had taken the Times down an “unfortunate path” (Ravi, 46).

Journalists allowed a threatening government to stifle their First Amendment obligation defined in Associated Press v. United States, 1945. Though there were cases where journalists did question and present the skepticism needed to fulfill their watchdog role, publications held back the information by burying the articles in the depths of the publications where they were sure their audience would not pay adequate attention to them. This was also done as a means to protect their reputation as a patriotic publication and yet attempt to satisfy those journalists who pushed for the truth.

It is unfortunate that in a critical time of possible warfare where peoples’ lives will be inevitably lost the press did not push has hard as it needed to get the facts straight and allow the U.S. citizens to make the well thought-out and accurately informed decision whether to support the war in Iraq.

Works Cited

Bamford, James. "The Man Who Sold the War." Rollingstone.com 17 Nov. 2005. 15

Apr. 2009 <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/

the_man_who_sold_the_war>.

Massing, Michael. Now They tell Us. New York: New York Review Books, 2004.

Ravi, Narasimhan. "Looking Beyond Flawed Journalism: How National Interests,

Patriotism, and Cultural Values Shaped the Coverage of the Iraq War." The

Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics (2005): 45-62.

Von Hoffman, Nicholas. "In the War Whorehouse." Index on Censorship 3 (2003): 36-43.

Wolfe, Arnold S., Jeromy Swanson, and Stacy Wrona. "What the American People

Deserce From American Journalism During Wartime." Journalism Studies 9

(2008): 38-56.