Fool me twice? -- NY Times, CBS, NBC report Bush allegations about Iran without context, skepticism
SUMMARY: In reporting
on the Bush administration's
allegations about Iran's
role in Iraq, media outlets
have covered the matter in a muddled, incomplete manner, omitting any skeptical
or critical analysis of these allegations, which suggests, in the words of
washingtonpost.com's Dan Froomkin, that "the lessons we should have
learned from Iraq
may not have been learned at all."
In his February 2 Nieman Watchdog column, washingtonpost.com blogger Dan Froomkin warned that the media's coverage of the Bush administration's posture toward Iran suggested that "the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all." Apparently bearing out Froomkin's concerns, media outlets such as The New York Times, CBS, and NBC have continued to report Bush's allegations about Iran's role in Iraq in a muddled, incomplete manner -- at times offering rebuttals to baseless and unsourced allegations of Iranian influence, while at other times serving as little more than stenographers.
In advising journalists to be skeptical of authority, Froomkin offered several suggestions:
- Don't assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
- Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
- Just because they say it, doesn't mean it should ... make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
- Don't print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.
Michael Gordon, The New York Times
A February 10 New York Times article by reporter Michael Gordon on the Bush administration's claim that the "most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq ... is being supplied by Iran" appeared to contravene every one of Froomkin's suggestions:
- "Don't assume everything administration officials tell you is true": Gordon uncritically reported that the "assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device" -- a weapon known as an "explosively formed penetrator" (EFP), used in roadside bombs -- "to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete." The article also uncritically quoted from an "intelligence assessment," which apparently claimed that "Iran is implementing a deliberate, calibrated policy -- approved by Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and carried out by the Quds Force -- to provide explosives support and training to select Iraqi Shia militant groups to conduct attacks against coalition targets."
- "Demand proof for every assertion": Gordon offered no indication that he asked for proof for these allegations.
- "Just because they say it, doesn't mean it should ... make the headlines": The article was headlined: "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says."
- "Don't print anonymous assertions": Gordon claimed he obtained "specific details" regarding Iran's involvement in Iraq from unnamed "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies."
In his article, Gordon did not include any skeptical or critical analysis of these allegations, aside from noting that "Iran has publicly denied the allegations." As Editor & Publisher noted on the day the article came out, Gordon is "the same Times reporter who, on his own or with [former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion."
By contrast, in a February 12 article, to which Gordon contributed, the Times reported that anonymous "senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war," and that "officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans." The Times added:
That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.
In a February 13 article by Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti, headlined "Doubts Greet U.S. Evidence On Iran Action" (the headline of the online version of the article was changed to "Skeptics Doubt U.S. Evidence on Iran Action in Iraq"), the Times again noted that the administration offered no "direct evidence," and that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "told reporters that he 'would not say' that Iran's leadership was aware of or condoned the attacks."
David Martin, CBS News
As Media Matters for America noted, during a February 12 report on the CBS Evening News on Iran's alleged ties to the supply of EFPs, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin uncritically quoted State Department spokesman Sean McCormack's claim that the "Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity." Martin also uncritically reported what he said was CBS News consultant Reza Aslan's belief that "supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, 'If you want us to stop, let's talk.' " Martin did not note in his report that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he "would not say" that Iran's government knew about or condoned the attacks, as noted by the Times on February 13. According to a February 12 McClatchy Newspapers article, Pace said:
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
Similarly, on the February 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported that "questions swirled today about the administration's long-awaited evidence," adding: "The U.S. claims the targeted explosives used in Iraq are made in Iran. Even if true, would that prove Iran's government was involved?" Mitchell noted that "administration officials ... acknowledge that the evidence is at best, quote, 'circumstantial,' " but at no point did she mention Pace's refusal to affirm that the government of Iran was involved.
From the February 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MITCHELL: The Bush administration is on the defensive today, denying that it is exaggerating intelligence about Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq to justify a U.S. attack on Iran.
[begin video clip]
Is the government in Tehran responsible for the deadly, armor-piercing devices that have been targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, as the White House and Pentagon claim? The president on C-SPAN today denied trying to create a pretext for war with Iran.
PRESIDENT BUSH: My reaction to all the noise about, you know, "He wants to go to war" is -- first of all, I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political.
MITCHELL: But questions swirled today about the administration's long-awaited evidence laid out for reporters yesterday in Baghdad by U.S. military officials who, in a highly unusual step, would not give their names. The U.S. claims the targeted explosives used in Iraq are made in Iran. Even if true, would that prove Iran's government was involved?
TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.
MITCHELL: Tehran, which celebrated the anniversary of its revolution yesterday, today denied the U.S. charge.
A spokesman said: "The United States has a long history of fabricating evidence." How involved is Tehran? U.S. intelligence officials have some doubts. Nine days ago, the government's 16 intelligence agencies reported that Iran's influence was not "a major driver of violence" in Iraq. That same day, the White House said it wasn't satisfied the Pentagon's case against Iran was solid.
STEPHEN HADLEY (national security adviser): Quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts.
MITCHELL: So, why is the evidence now ready? Or is the administration trying to provoke a confrontation with Iran?
BRUCE RIEDEL (former CIA official): This is extremely dangerous territory we're moving into now. We're accusing the Iranians of killing American soldiers on a battlefield. That raises the ante pretty high between us and Tehran.
[end video clip]
MITCHELL: Today, administration officials say they had to make their case to protect U.S. troops from a growing threat, but they acknowledge that the evidence is at best, quote, "circumstantial."
well hey, they did the same in the run up to iraq. you expect them to do their jobs? of course, you could say their job is keeping the gop in power and keeping corporate profits flowing.
Is Kerry reliable or is he a whitehouse lackey? On Hardball tonight.
Kerry: there are no doubts that Iran is making mischief in Iraq, but they also don't want there to be complete chaos there either. So it's in both their interests and ours to talk about how to avoid meltdown in Iraq.
Kerry voted for the infamous Iraq War Resolution as well, BTW. I can't say I am disappointed or surprised at his latest apparent sycophancy. At least Kerry is consistent and not flip-flopping as Republicans claim to hate even more.
Fasten your seat-belts and put your seats in the upright position. Heeeere weeee gooooo aaaaagain!!!!!
depends on what you define as "mischief". we know they want to stir up trouble, that's nothing new.
MMFA is just wrong
During a press conference. NBC's David Gregory specifically compared the Iran intelligence to the Iraq weapons intelligence that led up to the current war. And I've heard commentators (even on Fox News!) do the same. As far as news anchors on the big three networks, it is not their job to do commentary. They just do straight news reporting.
Indeed, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of the White House sounds eerily similar, or I dare say, the same, as what we heard going into March of 2003 before invading Iraq. And we keep hearing from them, "Trust us. You don't see the things that we see." and yet how can the people of America trust them at all? They lie so frequently and often that I can't believe a darn word coming out of their mouths about unimportant issues, let alone one where they are pointing fingers at Iran about something they may, or may not have done. I believe that the Bush administration has lost all of its credibility, and it just appears that they're bucking for another fight, this time with Iran. Looks like Iran just won the "war" lottery.
Even if Bush is righ about Irant...
The Bush administration proved to be so grossly incompetent in the planning and execution of the Iraq war that even if it was necessary to invade Iran I don't want Bush and company to handle it. Honestly, that thought is frightening... Bush obviously has no clue about what he's doing, and exactly whom is he listening to these days? The best plan for Democrats in Congress is stall, stall, stall... insist on negotiations with Iraq, use diplomacy, U.N resolutions, do anything... but if war with Iran looks inevitable try to push it into the next administration. Bush is already leaving his country and the world in a bad situation... let's not let him make it worse.
"negotiations with Iraq"
I meant IRAN.
I am having a hard time with this. If Bush just wants to have another war because well that’s the only thing he knows how to do, then why wouldn’t he pick Syria, much smaller, much less military risk? What I am afraid of is that he and his crew are truly loony. Militarily Iraq was a cakewalk, with the occupation following becoming a nightmare. With Iran a military invasion is a nightmare militarily, politically, regionally, globally right from the get go.
You have to factor in Israel in all this. It's Israel that wants Iran attacked...and whatever Israel wants, the US gives.
Right about that one Redking.
Well one thing that people do not talk about (but was mentioned on the History Channel overview of our current war), are the beliefs regarding the middle east in many evangelical faiths.
That the second coming of Jesus will come after a great war in the middle east (an event that we can move forward by starting this war). i.e. to bring Jesus back we need to start a massive world wide war based in the middle east.
Does Bush believe this? I don't know, but you can bet a few of his friends do believe this. Hopefully he listens to other people.
There's a group called the Council on National Policy that was set up by that LeHaye guy who wrote the "End of Days" books, which spell out a scenario of US troops invading "Babylon" (Iraq) to bring about the return of Jesus and the end of the world. Robertson and Falwell are member of this group and their aim is to make the books come true. They do hold some political power and you can bet with this Repub admin, there are Armageddonists in the White House helping to shape policy.
So hard to believe anything this Administration says. The extremely sad thing is that they have hurt our foreign standing for many more Presidential Administrations. Even if Iran were a legitimate threat, no one will believe a word this Administration says. I would like to see more reporting from NBC, CBS and the NY Times on just that point. It is sort of like the Boy who cried wolf too many times.
This Doris I agree with you.
Thanks for being respecful on this thread.
Gump cried wolf. We know the man is a shameless liar and cannot be trusted PERIOD. If the media rolls over again and uncritically touts the propaganda coming from the White House it will be exposing them as lapdogs of power. After Iraq if they want me to believe them then the will have to cough up actual video, verified from an unbiased source, proven not to have been photoshopped of Amenajead personally handing rocket launchers to people wearing tee shirts saying I heartsign bombing NYC
Frontline on PBS has a pretty extraordinary show called News War.
You can watch it online here. It digs pretty deeply into pre-war intelligence, the Plame Affair and the credibility of the media in general. What is pretty amazing is that the media figures in the report don't seem to understand that their coziness with the administration and the priveleges the media gives the administration are ruining journalism.
The parts with Judith Miller should make you want to reach out an slap her. Woodward wishes he would have been more skeptical, but we will see how he does this time around. Maybe now is a good time for a journalist to retire, when we can still remember (however vaguely) what good journalism was once like.
Go ahead and invade, Bush. Then demand a plan for fixing it.
If Bush doesn't get an authorization to use force from the Senate, won't he do it anyway? What would stop him?
Oh don't worry. AIPAC will spread the campaign cash around and the Senate will give Bush authorization. Heck, most of them are aleady eager to bomb Iran. Anything to kill a moslem, ya know.
tell us again how bill clinton sent albright and cohen on four trips to the middle east to drum up support for a "full blown invasion" of iraq.
You want me to tell you again how they are responsible for numerous unprovoked acts of war, airstrikes, and the deaths of one millin Iraqi by denial of medical supplies, which is a war crime under both the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Charter.
Even your beloved Hillary is NOT stepping back from attacking Iran. All she says is that Bush has to ask Congress first, she's NOT saying "No, don't do it!". Guess she has to make up some stuff to please her AIPAC donors, eh?
i'm just telling you that you made a statement that was totally untrue. that clinton was planning to to invade iraq.
Good morning, it's Ground Hog Day!
In my opinion. This is Bush's fault.
I know many of you people who have read my posts may be shocked to read this from me.
The story of the boy who cries Wolf ends by the boy acutally getting eaten by a Wolf when the real Wolf comes.
I think this is a great example of what is happening here.
I have no doubt that Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq, just like they did w/ Hezbollah.
The problem in this case, is that it is going to be impossible to convince anyone, even if it is happening, b/c he has lost also credibility.
You're right. It's been a hard pill to swallow for Bush supporters and conservatives in general to see the effects of unchecked power. Bush and company are not conservatives, they are radicals. Their whole mission is to change the US into something it was not meant to be. He does not care who he hurts to accomplish this goal, including his own party. Come the next block of elections, every Senator or Representative that has been following this guy over the cliff is going to be out of a job.
OK, lets suppose Iran, without real evidence I might add, IS sending in arms, and supporting their pick of insurrgents. How would that be a shock? Did we really think we would waltz in, invade Iraq, and the entire region would sit on their hands and do nothing? How would THEM supporting insurrgents in Iraq be any different than US supporting the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan? Wouldnt it be even LESS egregious than us creating and arming a proxy terrorist group called the Contras in Nicaragua to attack the CIVILIANS in a country that had freely elected leaders we didnt like? Is this another case of us demanding other countried comply to standards we would NEVER accept for ourselves? Condemning other nations for actions WE take? Is this a case of do as I say not as I do?
Hypocrisy has always been DC's biggest industry.
Very predictable...
What will most likely occur is that Bush will start a war with Iran and then ask for a huge tax cut for the rich in order to stumulate the economy. Haliburton will be awarded billions of dollars of no-bid contracts and ExxonMobil will once again announce record profits (of $44.5 billion). Instead of instituting a draft, in order to fill dwindling recruitment goals convicted felons will be offered combat duty in Iran in lieu of hard labor in prison. Finally, Congress will promise to provide armour kits for military Humvees in Iran... as soon as they can.
Well Irony, they have already dropped many restrictions to join the military. Allowing convicted felons and those with mental disabilities to join the military. People who would have been laughed at in the past if they had tried to join.
(BTW: you should see the number of recruiters on campus these days. I would say the number has nearly doubled, if not more. They are even asking to be allowed to enter class rooms during classes to make presentations, thankfully so far the administration has told them no.)
Right Before Our Eyes
Why are we letting Bush build up to a war with Iran? It has got to be the most craziest thing I have ever scene. Bush has positioned our forces to trigger a war that could end up in America being the aggressor for the second time in modern history.
Does this administration think the world will set by and let them initiate another war for profit? I think not. Put aside the rest of the world and just consider our own people. More than half the people in this country feel we are fighting the wrong fight. We believe our fight is in Afghanistan.
Militarily, we don't have the troops for another war front. If we started another war for which the world feels we should not have, we won't get the support we got in the last two engagements. In fact, we better hope Bush does not put himself in the same place he put Saddam Hessian in. I could see it now: The world against the mighty United States. This could happen.
We can not wait and let Bush go through the motions that can only lead to one thing: war. With out a doubt, that is just what he is doing. Say no to the process for war being lead up to before America's eyes.
Joseph
There are a number of things in this item that indicate already, how few people are buying the administration's lies with regard to Iran and Iraq... and rather than say the administration, it might be better to say the president himself... George W. Bush's lies with regard to Iran and Iraq.
Because it's also noteworthy at this stage, how few members of the administration (military, intelligence, or diplomatic) there are, who are willing to participate in this scheme of lies... or at least be identified by name on the record.
The item cites the hack piece in the NY Times on the 10th by gordon (and his track record in this type of thing), and how in two day's time on the 12th, they start holding the lies to the light:
"...asserted, without providing direct evidence"
"...the anonymity of the officials who made it [the inference that Iran supplies Iraq with lethal weapons], seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq"
And I appreciate the item informing me that the NY Times changed the headline of an article on the 13th from "Doubts Greet U.S. Evidence On Iran Action" to "SKEPTICS Doubt U.S. Evidence On Iran Action" (the administration's blue pencil takes a full day to work at the NY Times, I guess).
At least we got the doubts mentioned... as for being called a SKEPTIC in regard to George W. Bush's administration and Iraq and Iran, skepticism is not a taint of faith in that regard, but more like a life-saving trait... maybe save thousands of lives, by holding George W. Bush's lies to the light.
We need more skeptics, to save more lives... George W. Bush lies that much, and that deadly.
The item shows also that where administration officials will be named on the record, it's only by being quoted using wise-guy vague doublespeak (the kind of crap not allowed in legal contracts and court proceedings):
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack claim's the "Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity"...
...what does that mean? Is that truly how a spokesman for our State Dept. should speak on such a serious matter that requires life and death clarity, "up to their eyeballs in this activity"?
And when the WH spokesman Snow was asked if the UNPROVED origin of any explosive device in Iraq were to be Iran, did that in turn prove Iran to be behind the use of such an explosive?
To which he says "There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that"
That kind of language, when considering just what it is that's being alleged, is sickening for how offhand and vague it is: "freelancing"?
These people are masters at the art of misinformation... they've proven that already, so maliciously and deadly... their words cannot pass this time unexamined... "up to their eyeballs" and "freelancing" are not descriptions that would be allowed in a legal court proceeding, they should not be allowed here.
Lastly, the transcription has NBC's Mitchell reporting on the 12th that:
"How involved is Tehran? U.S. intelligence officials have some doubts. Nine days ago, the government's 16 intelligence agencies reported that Iran's influence was not "a major driver of violence" in Iraq"
Now before I ask you something about that statement, I'd contrast it with the above quoted observation from the NY Times piece, specifically that:
the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq
As far as our government's 16 intelligence agencies reporting that Iran's influence was not "a major driver of violence" in Iraq, just nine days ago, I'd ask (as loudly as my voice can be made to go):
IF THOSE AGENCIES DID NOT FIND IRAN TO BE
"A MAJOR DRIVER OF VIOLENCE"
IN IRAQ, THEN JUST WHO IS IT THOSE AGENCIES DID FIND TO BE
"A MAJOR DRIVER OF VIOLENCE"
IN IRAQ?
Isn't that a good question?
Isn't the answer to that question the president's "good friends" and business partners the Saudi "royal" family?
Isn't that why George W. Bush is telling yet more deadly lies to the American People, this time about Iran...
...to divert the American People's attention away from the murderous Saudi "royal" family yet again... to divert attention away from his "good friends" and business partners yet again?
The magnitude of the lie that George W. Bush told the American People today...
...is as big as the lies about WMDs and Uranium and aluminum tubes and al qeada links etc.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that George W. Bush told this monsterous and deadly lie...
....right in the middle of the U.S. House of Representatives' three day debate on Iraq?
Let's all send a grain of salt to the white house. "Dear Mr. President, Please, please take all the intelligence regarding Iran with a grain of salt. Even though my net wages have consistently fallen over the last 6 years I can spare the enclosed grain of salt for you and or Mr. Cheney, or who ever is really the decider"
Maybe not quite so sarcastic, but be sure to get the point across that the decisions up to now have been pretty dismal.
Froomkin is dead-on about anonymous sourcing, a problem Lowell Bregman barely flicked at during PBS's Frontline special the other night on the media muddle in Washington, D.C. Back in the day, attributing quotes and assertions to anonymous sources was used mainly to protect whistler-blowers and other sources when dealing with topics of utmost importance. Today it's SOP. Almost every conversation any reporter has in Washington these days is off-the-record. The number of annonymous quotes and assertions in the N.Y. Times each day is mind-numbing. This abuse of what should be a highly selective practice has created a tremendous amount of public cynicism about reporting, and justifiably so. When I submitted a spoof of the Times' off-the-record reporting to its Op-ed page a year or so ago, the editor I was dealing with at the time told me it was "an old chesnut." Some old chesnut. As the WMD reporting and the Libby trial, among many other events, have made clear, anonymous sourcing has corrupted the reporting process and resulted in the co-option of the press by the current Administration, most demonstrably during the run-up to the Iraq war. The gold-standard of off-the-record reporting was Woodstein's Deep Throaqt. Watergate was a coverup of political espionage at the higest level of government. It was a case of the press vs. the government. Preserving the identity of Deep Throat was essential if the reporting was to go forward. Today off-the-record reporting is too often a case of the press colluding with the government. A Faustian Bargain is struck: the government leaker gets a cloak of anonymity; the reporter gets information that too often turns out to be mis-information; the public gets screwed. "All the News That's Fit to Print" becomes "All the News, Fit or Unfit." The Times and other outlets have acquiesced to an epidemic of anonymous sourcing that infects not just important news but trivial news, unessential background information, innocuous details, unncessary quotes. (In an interminable "deep backgrounder" in the New Yorker recently by one of the nation's most illustrious investigative reporters, not one source was identified!) Because editors didn't have the wisdom or courage to enforce tough standards, to set the bar of selectivity high, the judges have stepped in. What the press has lost is not only credibility but what was once the presumed protection of the First Amendment. All of this could have been avoided if editors and reporters had insisted, all along, on making sources accountable for the information they provided. What a pity.
Fantastic post. I wish I would have written that.
What is even worse is that the media don't seem to realize the problem they have undeniably created for themselves. There seems to be no interest in correcting the problem.
Froomkin sets forth a set of rules in the above article, which should be obvious to the media to begin with. The fact Froomkin even has to write them down shows how far media ethics and standards have eroded.
Thanks,
Very well said Doherty.
Ask yourself this: what interest would Iran have in causing chaos in Iraq? They have the government they want in power. They most likely could not be more pleased with the outcome of the Iraq war.
Listen to Juan Cole on this week's Counterspin. He also made an appearance on Olbermann's show, too.
In my opinion, the insurgents are much more likely Salafi revivalists than they are Iranian agents.
Forgive me if this has been covered already, but is it not supreme irony that the US threatens Iran with retaliation if they "meddle" in Iraq's affairs? If meddling is a sin, what is invading a soveriegn, secular nation? Crikey, these Bushies really seem to be jonesing for the resources of another oil rich soverign country.
Every journalist should read Froomkin's 4 bullet points.
But, as we know, those rules only apply when interviewing Democrats.
The interviewers ironically often dont even follow Froomkin's 4 Points properly when interviewing Democrats. They often use outright discredited or blatantly preposterous Republican talking points in sham interviews. Journalism is in intensive care, although there are fortunately people like Keith Olbermann and the individuals at several different independent media outlets who are the medicine to revive journalism in the United States of America.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
This is hardly a surprise. Nothing has been learned from the lead-up to the Iraq war. At least back then it was the first time that false or misleading claims were being made about a case for war in this post 9/11 era, and it was shortly after 9/11 and Bush was at 80 to 90 percent in the polls. Now there are no lame excuses. Lessons should have been learned. Either they were learned and are being ignored, or they have not been learned at all. The quesion is which is worse.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
What can i say?
Fool you once, shame on them.
Fool you twice, shame on you.
Fool you thrice, Hellooooooo!