|
| |
TOMPAINE.com - News Without A Compass
News Without A Compass
New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who
covers politics and media.
Recently, The New York Times got a deserved spanking for running a
seemingly unjustified, strangely sourced article justifying the
administration’s retreat from its claims that Iraq possessed large
stores of frightening offensive weapons. But the spanking came and
went, and the media community missed a chance for some healthy
self-reflection about larger institutional failings in a
success-obsessed, competitive business.
First, the background. On April 21, the Times published a front-page
article from Judith Miller, the paper’s resident expert on chemical
and biological weapons. In it, she passed on supposed claims from a
mysterious source that the only reason coalition forces had failed
to find chemical weapons was because they either were recently
destroyed or existed strictly as precursors that also have civilian
purposes. But she never met, spoke with, or verified the identity of
the "source." She could merely confirm that military authorities
pointed out a man in the distance, clad in a baseball cap to conceal
his identity, and described him as an Iraqi scientist providing that
information.
In her -- and presumably her editors’ -- eagerness to get the story,
she even agreed to remove text from her article. "Those officials
asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted," Ms.
Miller wrote. "They said they feared that such information could
jeopardize the scientist’s safety by identifying the part of the
weapons program where he worked." Why his safety would be in
question remains a mystery -- now that Saddam is gone, now that the
United States controls Iraq, and, presumably, since the United
States itself is supremely positioned to protect his safety.
Although Miller revealed the restrictions under which she was
operating, her article was met with explosive disapproval. One
unnamed Times staffer called it "wacky-assed," Slate’s Jack Shafer
criticized her for agreeing to pre-publication review by military
officials -- "oh hell, let’s call it censorship!" -- and accused her
of using her connections to add details to the book that she’s got
in the works. The Washington Post implicitly criticized Miller
without naming her. "Without further details of the find, experts
said, its significance cannot be assessed.... Experts said nearly
any ingredient for a chemical weapon can also be used for civilian
purposes."
But the problem runs deeper here. This is a case of someone
aggressively protecting what she perceives as her "turf" in a highly
questionable manner, and with the backing of the newspaper the
public expects to set standards. Miller made her name with scores of
articles on the subject in recent years, co-authored the book Germs:
Biological Weapons And America's Secret War that certainly fed fears
of horrendous visitations -- exactly the kind of nightmare scenarios
the White House played on in pushing for invasion in the first
place. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. Without Saddam,
neither Miller nor Bush would be where they are today. And by
cornering this section of the apocalyptic news market, she did well
for herself and her paper, winning awards and acclaim.
Miller’s past reporting may or may not have been impeccable. But
clearly, in this instance she has proven willing to play fast and
loose. As for her employer, the Times has already set a recent
standard in the business as being a little too zealous in promoting
its own scoops and strategizing coverage to win awards.
The pressure of the 24-hour cycle, and the desire to break the story
and grab another Pulitzer, is a dangerous element. Plenty of star
journalists, including The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, are
seemingly accorded the kinds of "freedom" that would never otherwise
be tolerated. Frankly, the public has every reason to worry about
who is yanking whose chain, and what untold consequences might
result. The past two years have shown that there’s more reason than
ever to be skeptical of official declarations, and yet ambition is
sending the media in the opposite direction. There’s certainly as
much cozying up to authority as ever -- more, it seems.
If the Times wants to lead the news in this important area, let it
assign tough, credible reporters with no dog in this particular
fight, and let those panic-inducing biochem chips fall where they
may. For the rest of the business, this is an ideal time to ask
whether we ought to be agreeing to some kind of concordat on
acceptable rules of the trade.
Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the
latest on what's new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can
unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your
information to any other entity.
Published: May 13 2003
|