… When, under pressure, a politician blurts out the truth?
The people doing the fighting think it’s going pretty well. The people doing the writing think the whole thing is doomed. Has been, really, ever since that sandstorm. That was when the tide shifted:
My experience will illustrate why this is important. I was embedded at brigade headquarters and saw everything the brigade commander saw. All the other Time and Newsweek embeds were at lower levels. Just after the sandstorm-enforced halt in the assault on Baghdad, Time sent me the copy for that week’s cover story entitled “Why Are We Losing” and asked me to find comments to feed into the story.
That day I saw Colonel David Perkins of the 3rd Infantry Division and talked to many of his officers. Their reaction to the story was, “Tomorrow we laager up to refuel and rearm. The next day we move out to hit the Medina Division. It’s beat up, facing the wrong way, and does not know we’re coming. The day after that we ride onto Baghdad International Airport.” After a few calculations, I figured out Time was going to declare the war lost on the same day we entered Baghdad. This was not good.
I sent a note to Time telling them they were about to look very foolish. Unfortunately, I was alone in my estimation of the situation. All of the talking heads on TV were shouting about disaster.
Fast forward three years, and in Secretary Rumsfeld’s press conference yesterday, the gantlet was thrown down, and the political mask in part removed:
SEC. RUMSFELD: Charlie.
Q Mr. Secretary, I’d like to clear up exactly what you’re saying here. Are you saying that this poll and that what you call the rush toward declaring civil war in Iraq, is that the result of intentional misreporting of the situation there?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I can’t go into people’s minds. All I’m doing is reporting on what we’ve seen. General Casey pointed out to this group here that he believes — his data shows that the numbers of mosque attacks and the nature of the attacks and the severity of the attacks have been considerably exaggerated and that the number of civilian Iraqis that have been killed or wounded has been exaggerated.
And — now, why someone or whoever did this, I have no way to judge. I’m not going to judge them. It’s just a fact that he is saying that, and I believe he’s correct.
Q But you said, Sir, that — I believe that the reporting was virtually one-sided. Does that mean –
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah, the interesting thing about it is they all seem to be of a kind. All the things that have later been corrected or need to be corrected or that he believes were exaggerated all seem to be on one side of the equation. We don’t see the similar thing on the other side, which you normally would get in some kind of a random spread, one would think.
I should expect that press conferences for SecDef will manifest a markedly frostier tone going forward. He’s up-Cheneying Cheney.
Alternatively, this could be a moment of soul searching and introspection from the media.
What do you think will happen?
Wretchard has more.
14 responses so far ↓
1
FbL
// Mar 8, 2006 at 6:53 am
Alternatively, this could be a moment of soul searching and introspection from the media.
Yeah, right.
2
MCPO Airdale
// Mar 8, 2006 at 7:56 am
The press has determined that this is “their” Vietnam. Mentored at the feet of liberals who undermined that effort, they view Iraq as their opportunity to damage the war effort and out military.
Some of it may be from a lack of knowledge/perspective but, I fear, it it largely calculated.
3
Kris, in New England
// Mar 8, 2006 at 9:58 am
“…but, I fear, it is largely calculated.”
And I fear you are right Airdale. It certainly isn’t balanced, wasn’t right from the start. Which would lead any reasonable person to the same conclusion as you. They’ll stand behind the First Amendment forever and never once will they tell the whole truth; sometimes I wonder whether the MSM even tells any sort of truth, half or less.
4 Jason // Mar 8, 2006 at 1:50 pm
It’s too bad that the same kind of scrutiny the media puts on the President or Enron for that matter isn’t reflected back at themselves.
5
Jeff
// Mar 8, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I ceased relying on the major media (including the local paper) for any kind of true or even relevant reporting. I’ll read cnn, a few other news sites, and maybe my local paper to find out what’s happening, and then I hit the internet in search of the real story behind what those outlets are reporting - especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. If I want to know how the war is really going.. well, that’s what milblogs are for, yes?
6
USAFGuy
// Mar 9, 2006 at 7:41 am
“Alternatively, this could be a moment of soul searching and introspection from the media.”
Whoever thought MSM jounalists had “souls” to search?
7
Tugboat Phil
// Mar 9, 2006 at 8:12 am
“Alternatively, this could be a moment of soul searching and introspection from the media.”
Methinks you’ve spliced the main brace once too often.
8
Lucky
// Mar 9, 2006 at 11:13 am
I guess my curiosity is piqued when I ask not “if,” since its a forgone conclusion, but “why?” What is it that the MSM is getting out of this? Sales? Could they not get that from doing the same/equal reporting on both sides? I would assume that there is just as much, if not more, interest in the good over there as is the bad–thus the success of the blogosphere.
9
Shadow
// Mar 9, 2006 at 2:53 pm
It’d be nice to see, but I don’t think it will happen. As was mentioned above this bizarre fixation with Vietnam persists, both in the press and elsewhere, to the degree that many can’t accept learning lessons from Vietnam and applying them to a different situation is possible for the military. I suspect that there is a desire amongst some members of the press to mold history in the fashion that they perceive the press of the Vietnam era as having done driving a sort of warped nostalgia. The protest movement seems to be the same old (literally, in many cases, I was down in Astoria last week and there seemed to be a meeting of the old hippie’s home inmates in the town square) bunch. I seriously doubt that the press can push past their own self image as arbiters of truth and morality enough to seriously examine new data.
10
tblubrd
// Mar 9, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Wait! Wait!
Did you say “a moment of soul searching” by the media?
Bwahahahaha!
Lex, you are SOOO funny! hehehehehe
11
Idaho
// Mar 9, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I think it has to do partly with the quick news cycle….Today’s journalists only tell us what they see right in front of them….they don’t make time to look left, right, or behind. I’m not making an excuse for them, I’m just saying…I find myself reminding my momma, because she wants to believe the news she watches is giving her the whole story, but we know they’re not….
Anyway, the main reason I wanted to post here, was because in Lacey’s piece in Proceedings, he claimed to be the only embedded jounalist who was also military. I think that claim shows his BIG EGO, because I think Greg Kelly, embedded with 3ID, was also a military ID-card carrying journalist also….
12
FbL
// Mar 10, 2006 at 6:24 am
Idaho, there are many others. Just off the top of my head, there’s Greg Palkott of Fox News who was embedded in the beginning of the Iraq war and has been back a few times, I think. And Ralph Peters has been going out on missions with the U.S. military in Baghdad lately. I know there are more…
13
FbL
// Mar 10, 2006 at 6:24 am
And of course, how could I forget Michael Yon!
14
Idaho
// Mar 10, 2006 at 6:36 am
Yes, Exactly…It was just a bit presumptuous of him to assume he was the “only” journalist embedded who happened to also be a reservist.
I do agree with Lacey’s thesis though…that the military hasn’t handled the information war well at all. And if Rumsfeld recognizes the problem and has mentioned it now in a couple different forums (speeches, news conferences, etc.), then I am looking forward to the changes that must surely be coming. I hope.
Leave a Comment