[Media-watch] chemical factory disinformation

Thu Mar 27 06:45:05 GMT 2003

Thanks for this, David - I was thinking of writing to Mr Sambrook anyway,
and this has prompted me. My letter follows:

Dear Richard

At the weekend BBC news bulletins reported that US troops had discovered a
chemical weapons factory. It is noticeable that this story quietly
disappeared from the media, as subsequent Pentagon reports poured cold water
on the story; in fact it was quickly found that the factory has been long
abandoned.

I am concerned that the BBC reported this 'find' so categorically, and that
there has been no follow up story (to my knowledge) confirming that the
initial reporting was wrong. Such inaccurate reporting is dangerous in that
it creates a post-hoc justification for a war which is still opposed by
many. I also believe that it has a cumulative effect on public opinion,
which has been shown to be be shifting in favour of war; as I have said
before, it appears that, whether wittingly or not, the BBC is doing the
government's proaganda job. People remember the initial story, and this
confirms in their minds the primary justification for war, namely that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction; a 'fact' that is far from proven.

I would welcome your comments.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Priestley 
-----Original Message-----
From: david Miller
To: media-watch at lists.stir.ac.uk
Sent: 26/03/2003 13:17
Subject: [Media-watch] chemical factory disinformation

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.' " 