[Media-watch] chemical factory disinformation

david Miller david.miller at stir.ac.uk
Wed Mar 26 13:24:42 GMT 2003



more disinformation:

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1271500,00.html

Oakland TribuneDEBAYAREA    CAREERS    REAL ESTATE    CLASSIFIEDS    AUTO    TRAVEL    COMMUNITY    SHOP
  Wednesday, March 26, 2003     A Service of ANG Newspapers    Advertise | Subscribe | Contact Us 
      
Skepticism needs to be re-embedded in war coverage
Media have been reporting speculation
By Josh Getlin, Los Angeles Times
and Elizabeth Jensen

NEW YORK -- The rumors show no signs of going away: Saddam Hussein was killed the first night of the war. Or he was badly injured. Or he escaped and is hiding somewhere in Baghdad. 

If there is a thread linking these stories, it is that the media have reported them enthusiastically and uncritically, with no independent verification. They are speculative, based on Pentagon sources, and while their news value is obvious, they also help the Bush administration reinforce the message of an Iraqi regime in disarray. 

On one level, news coverage of the Iraq war has produced a flood of vivid, firsthand stories from more than 500 reporters who are traveling with U.S. forces. Yet these dispatches, however compelling, provide only fragmentary glimpses of a vast military effort. To convey the bigger picture, journalists depend on military and government officials, and the two sides don't always have the same priorities. 

"The potential for the media to be the vehicle for disinformation and propaganda in this war is great, as it is in any conflict," said Stephen Hess, a media and terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution. "We don't expect the U.S. government to lie, yet we also know that they will put out information during a time of war to confuse the enemy and further their own aims. The question is, can these two be reconciled?' 

Some believe that the media must always assume the worst and be vigilant about the source of wartime stories. "A lot of editors have been concerned this past week over the difference between spin and difficult reporting," said David Yarnold, editor and senior vice president of the San Jose Mercury News. "It's hard to know what the facts are with the sheer volume of news we have pouring in from the battlefield every day." 

The media's initial war coverage has already raised a red flag with some critics. Stories about the alleged discovery of an Iraqi chemical weapons factory captivated the world media Sunday, for example, but were quietly contradicted by Pentagon sources Monday. The story was first reported by a Jerusalem Post journalist traveling with the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division in Najaf, who said that troops had captured "the first Iraqi installation that appears to have produced chemical weapons." 

Within hours, the story had spread worldwide and was given prominent coverage on Fox News, among several U.S. television networks. 

Doubts grew about the accuracy of the report, however, and U.S. officials said Monday that absolutely no chemicals were found at the site, which had been abandoned long ago by the Iraqis. 

"We got some information from our sources and it seemed to check out fine," said Bill Shine, network executive producer for Fox News Channel, discussing his network's active coverage of the story. "But eventually we had to pull back" about six hours later, "after getting indications that it wasn't actually the chemical weapons factory." 

Some media outlets treated the chemical weapons story more cautiously, such as Bruce Drake, vice president for news and information at National Public Radio. He put the story on the air only after Associated Press reported that a chemical plant had been found and was being investigated. 

Was that disinformation (given by officials) to some reporter, or was that a reporter's mistake? he asked. It could have been that a reporter heard they'd found a chemical plant ... and, since we're all primed for this, assumed that it was chemical weapons. (End optional trim)Many journalists and their editors believe they have a good chance of filtering out disinformation in this campaign, mainly because of the number of reporters traveling with military units. CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour acknowledged that "in every war, on every side, there is psychological warfare, propaganda. But I don't believe at the moment that we're being necessarily lied to or overtly manipulated." 

Yet others say the media,especially cable TV networks,have filled up hours of air time with too much speculation and governmental spin, none of which is subjected to rigorous standards of reporting. 

There has been persistent speculation on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that large numbers of Iraqi Republican Guard members might surrender. 

But that has yet to happen, prompting some critics to suggest that U.S. journalists need to be asking much tougher questions. 

"I'm astonished at the lack of skepticism in the media so far, especially on television, because we've heard a lot of things reported that may not be true," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. 

But some critics say reporters today have yet to challenge what is perhaps the most fundamental governmental message of all -- that it is only a matter of time before Saddam is ousted from the power. 

"So many media say there 'little doubt' this will happen," Hess said. "But that's a purely American perspective. There are people who say: 'Maybe this is another Viet Cong situation. The Iraqis will wear us down, and five years from now another American president will be evacuating the last people off the roof of the American embassy in Baghdad.' " 









©1999-2003 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
 







More information about the Media-watch mailing list