This Week: How the media learned to stop worrying and love the bomb Wash. Post editorial board contradicts Post's own news articles; Post reporters claim they don't care Post finally asks poll question about impeachment -- but asks far different question than it asked about Clinton In case you missed it

How the media learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

Last weekend, The New Yorker and The Washington Post both reported that the Bush administration is considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Near the end of an 1,800-word front-page article about the administration's consideration of “options for military strikes against Iran,” the Post reported:

Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. “Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do.”

The New Yorker went into greater detail:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

[...]

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. " 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout -- we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out” -- remove the nuclear option -- “they're shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran -- without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.' ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.

On Monday, President Bush responded to the reports, declaring: “I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.”

Bush did not, however, directly deny that his administration is considering the first use of nuclear weapons against another nation in more than 60 years. Nor have any of his spokespeople.

Perhaps more stunning than the administration's apparent consideration of the military use of nuclear weapons is the reaction some in the media have had to the news.

Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly, for example, accused his colleagues in the media -- “the anti-Bush media,” he called them -- of “phony and political” outrage over the administration's military planning. But O'Reilly didn't bother to mention that the planning includes the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Fox News national security correspondent Bret Baier likewise somehow managed to discuss the Post and New Yorker articles without ever mentioning that both reveal the Bush administration's openness to using nuclear weapons.

New CNN hire and nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck, meanwhile, asked, “Why do we have these weapons? Why have we developed these weapons if we're afraid to use them?” and suggested referring to nuclear weapons by alternate names to make their use more palatable.

Of course, few people turn to Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck for thoughtful, informed discussions of the news.

Amazingly, the editorial boards of The New York Times and The Washington Post have stayed silent on the topic. The Post, in an April 13 editorial, suggested that a military strike against Iran might not be effective. And the Times, in an April 11 editorial, went further, arguing that “war with Iran would be reckless folly.” But neither even addressed the administration's reported consideration of nuclear strikes against Iran -- much less denounced such planning.

Regular readers know we've long argued that a major flaw in the media's coverage of the Bush administration has been a shortage of news stories exploring the consequences of the president's handling of the Iraq war:

And it is important to assess the consequences of the administration's lies about, and mishandling of, the Iraq war. Is the public less likely to believe the administration if it says we need to use force against Iran because of their false claims about Iraq? That's a question we've repeatedly asked; why don't reporters? Perhaps the third anniversary of the Iraq war would be a good time to finally include the question in a poll.

The Los Angeles Times took a step in the right direction with a poll released this week. The L.A. Times didn't directly measure whether Bush's false statements about Iraq hurt his credibility on Iran, but it did ask whether the Iraq war has made people more or less supportive of military action against Iran; “less supportive” won by a greater than two-to-one ratio. And the L.A. Times asked: “Generally speaking, do you trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran, or not?” Only 42 percent of Americans, according to the poll, trust Bush to make the right decision; 54 percent do not. Among independents, the disparity was even greater -- 40 percent trust Bush, while 54 percent do not.

In short: the American people have lost confidence and trust in their commander in chief ... at a time when we're already fighting one war ... and considering the use of nuclear weapons in another.

Shouldn't this be the dominant news story of our time, rather than something that gets mentioned in bits and pieces -- and only in passing?

Wash. Post editorial board contradicts Post's own news articles; Post reporters claim they don't care

An April 9 Washington Post editorial written in defense of Bush's authorization of the disclosure of portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate made several statements that are directly contradicted by the newspaper's own reporting.

Media Matters explained:

[T]he Post published an editorial, titled "A Good Leak," that echoed numerous falsehoods also promoted by conservative media figures and Republican activists in defense of President Bush's reported authorization of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to disclose to the media classified portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. The Post editorial board seemingly ignored its own paper's past reporting on the CIA leak scandal, which has thoroughly debunked the false claims made by conservative and Republican figures and echoed in the April 9 Post editorial.

The Post editorial commented on the April 6 revelation that court papers pertaining to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, indicated that Bush authorized Libby to disclose specific, classified portions of the NIE to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Libby was indicted in October 2005 on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI regarding the federal investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

As Media Matters for America has noted, the Post's editorial page repeated without challenge the Bush administration's justifications for the Iraq war in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion and was complicit in forwarding many of the administration's false and misleading claims to justify the invasion retroactively. In a March 8 online discussion, a reader asked Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt when the editorial writers will “own up” to this record. Hiatt responded, "[W]e've acknowledged that we were mistaken in our assumptions about WMD." But the Post has yet to retract its numerous false statements regarding an alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda connection and the Bush administration's use of intelligence. To the contrary, as the April 9 editorial shows, Hiatt has continued to print flagrant falsehoods concerning the Bush administration's efforts to justify the war, even while he and the board have every reason to know -- from the Post's own reporting -- that those assertions are false.

Media Matters went on to provide a side-by-side-by-side look at false claims in the April 9 Post op-ed, similar claims made by Republicans and conservatives, and the Post news reporting that debunks those claims.

Post reporters responded to their paper's editorial board directly contradicting their paper's journalists by professing non-interest.

Post media writer Howard Kurtz, for example, claimed, “I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader.” What kind of media writer doesn't care about the fact that one of the nation's most influential editorial boards has directly contradicted the reporting of one of the nation's most influential newsrooms -- particularly when they are both part of the same newspaper that employs said media writer? What kind of newspaper employs a media writer who doesn't care about things like that?

In an online discussion with readers, Post national political editor John Harris explained why he and many of his Post colleagues don't care that some other of his Post colleagues can't even agree about basic matters of fact:

Anonymous: On yesterday's chat, Peter Baker answered a few questions about the controversial editorial “A GOOD LEAK”, and then stated he hadn't read it, and wasn't planning on reading it. Is that unusual for a Post reporter to be so incurious? I would hope so!

John F. Harris: This is funny ... I was also kind of surprised -- since it always seems to me that Peter Baker has read and is on top of everything. He is the exact opposite of “incurious” in every way -- one reason he is a great reporter.

But, as he said, we always have tons of stuff to read and way more than anyone has time for and he just had not read that editorial.

To repeat a point he made yesterday: the editorial page is is [sic] separate from the newsroom.

Though plainly several liberal blogs and many readers were worked up about the editorial, the fuss simply did not involve us and there was no reason for us to get similarly worked up.

But the “fuss” does involve the newsroom. The discrepancy between what the Post newsroom has reported and what the Post editorial page has asserted is not one that can be explained away as a difference of opinion. Even Post reporter Dan Balz has described the “contrast” between what the newsroom has reported and what the editorial board asserts as “striking.” There are matters of fact involved -- matters of fact about which the newsroom is either right or wrong.

If the newsroom is wrong, it should correct its reporting; that should go without saying.

If the newsroom is right, its work and credibility are being falsely and unfairly undermined by one of the most powerful media institutions in the nation: The Washington Post editorial page. And there should be no doubt: the editorial does undermine Post reporters. For example, a reader asked Kurtz during his April 10 online discussion, “Doesn't it make the reporters look foolish when the editorial page is so dead on with their analysis while the reporters are basically carrying the water of those who are against President Bush?”

But maybe Post reporters are so selfless they don't care about protecting their own reputations. In that case, maybe they should consider their responsibility to their readers. If the newsroom is right and the editorial board is wrong, Post readers -- and the nation -- are being misled about matters of enormous importance by one of the most powerful media institutions in the nation. Isn't that something that a newsroom that stands among the nation's most influential should confront head-on and try to stop?

Finally: With every Post newsroom employee who has commented publicly on this matter refusing to weigh in on the substantive merits of the editorial, does anyone really believe that the newsroom and editorial board are truly “separate,” as they all claim? If they really are so separate, why are Post reporters so reluctant to contradict the editorial? The editorial board certainly isn't reluctant to contradict Post news reports. That certainly looks like a situation in which the two departments aren't free from interference from each other -- one very much seems to have the upper hand.

Post finally asks poll question about impeachment -- but asks far different question than it asked about Clinton

In December, we noted that Washington Post polling director Richard Morin's explanation of why the Post would not ask a question about the public's support for impeaching George Bush was inconsistent with the Post's handling of the question when Bill Clinton was president:

In a November 13 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell addressed reader requests for the Post to conduct its own polls to measure public support for impeachment:

First, there was a swarm to me and to Post Polling Editor Richard Morin asking that The Post do a poll on whether President Bush should be impeached. Whoa. Since we get mail all the time saying that we are biased against Bush or are in his back pocket, why would The Post want to do that? The question many demanded that The Post ask is biased and would produce a misleading result, Morin said; he added that the campaign was started by Democrats.com.

But Howell's defense doesn't ring true. Her reference to complaints that the Post is “biased against Bush or are in his back pocket” is simply an irrelevant dodge; it has nothing to do with the question. It's simply the same tired and lazy strategy that news organizations often fall back on in the face of criticism: saying, essentially: hey, both sides complain, so we must be doing everything right.

Further, Howell didn't explain how “the question many demanded the Post ask is biased,” she just asserted it (attributing the assertion to Morin). But how would it be biased? Surely it must be possible to design a poll question to measure the public's support for impeachment that isn't “biased.” After all, the Post did it repeatedly when there was a Democratic president.

Two weeks later, we explained that Morin had changed his story, claiming that he and the Post were not polling to determine public support for impeachment of Bush because “it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion.”

This week, the Post reported the results of a poll that finally included a question about impeachment. Here's how Morin explained the results in an April 11 article:

The depth of public dissatisfaction with Bush and the highly partisan nature of the criticism are underscored by public attitudes toward efforts by some in Congress to censure him or impeach him for his actions as president.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders view both scenarios as remote possibilities. Still, more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found.

Last month, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said his move was driven more by politics than by principle.

Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of independents oppose impeachment.

Notice that Morin claims the results to the questions about censure and impeachment indicate “the highly partisan nature of the criticism” of Bush. But do they really? Or do they reflect the fact that the Post injected partisan politics into the questions? The censure and impeachment questions were worded as follows:

40. As you may know, Bush authorized wiretaps on telephone calls and e-mails of people suspected of involvement with terrorism, without first getting court approval to do so. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has called for Congress to censure or officially reprimand Bush for doing this. Do you think Congress should or should not censure or officially reprimand Bush for authorizing these wiretaps?

41. Do you think Feingold is calling for censuring Bush mainly (to use the issue for political advantage), or mainly (because he believes it is the right thing to do)?

42. Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?

Perhaps the partisan split in the poll results simply reflects the fact that the Post chose to identify censure and impeachment as matters being promoted by Democrats?

By contrast, the Post's January 1998 poll, which asked several questions about the possibility of impeaching President Clinton, did not associate the idea with either political party.

There's another crucial difference between the way the Post asked about impeachment in 1998 and the way it asked about impeachment in 2006: In 1998, the questions asked whether Clinton should be impeached for specific reasons. Two of the questions asked were:

If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?

If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?

In asking if Bush should be impeached, the Post omitted any mention of any reason why one might think he should be.

Finally, in 1998, the Post asked if Clinton should be “impeached.” In 2006, the Post asked if Bush should be impeached and removed from office -- leaving no room for the respondent who thinks he should be impeached but not removed, as Clinton was.

So, in 1998, the Post poll gave respondents a specific reason why Clinton might be impeached, didn't tie it to either political party, and didn't include his removal from office in the question. But in 2006, the Post did link the possibility to one party, did not give respondents a specific reason why Bush might be impeached, and did include his removal from office in the question.

Why are Richard Morin and the Post asking about impeachment so differently now? If the new method is better -- less “biased” and less likely to “produce a misleading result,” as Morin might say -- should he explain what was wrong with the earlier method? Shouldn't the Post tell us why it continues to treat Presidents Clinton and Bush so differently? There may be perfectly valid reasons -- but absent any explanation, it certainly looks suspicious that the Post is putting partisan labels in their poll questions, then reports that the results show a partisan split.

In case you missed it

More highlights from Media Matters' items this week:

• • Déjà vu all over again: A Fox News military analyst confidently touts U.S. ability to “take Iran down very quickly” ... then again, he said the same thing about Iraq ... more than three years ago.

• • Bill O'Reilly sees a “hidden agenda” behind the immigrant rights movement: "the browning of America."

• • CNN's David Ensor offered a defense of President Bush against the suggestion that Bush may have been aware of contradictory evidence at the time of his May 29, 2003, statement that the United States had discovered biological weapons labs in Iraq. But Ensor's defense is one that not even the White House has offered, and it ignores the fact that top administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, continued to make the same claim for more than six months.

• • Ensor's CNN colleague Suzanne Malveaux reported that White House press secretary Scott McClellan said “very clearly” that Bush had not seen the contradictory evidence. But McClellan didn't say that, very clearly or otherwise. He very clearly refused to say whether or when Bush learned of the contradictory evidence.

• • Joe Klein -- Time magazine's purportedly liberal columnist -- reportedly said that liberals' message for the last 20 years has been that they "hate America." Klein has tried to explain away criticism of his comments. Last year, Klein described Democrats as “a party with absolutely no redeeming social value.” As Media Matters explained, such attacks on Democrats and liberals standard practice for Time magazine -- the magazine that published a 2005 puff-piece cover story on right-wing hate merchant Ann Coulter.

• • NBC's David Shuster and Kelly O'Donnell provided the latest examples of major media figures who still can't fathom - or accept - the fact that President Clinton was a very popular president throughout his second term, including during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. O'Donnell claimed “President Clinton hit 41 percent around impeachment,” which is very nearly as false a statement as you could possibly make: Clinton's approval rating in the Gallup poll at the time of his impeachment was an astronomical 73 percent. Shuster, meanwhile, noted that President Bush's current approval ratings are “even lower” than Clinton's were during the Lewinsky investigation. That's technically true, though highly misleading, as Bush's approval ratings are about 30 points lower than Clinton's were.

• • Wildly unpopular and reclusive Vice President Dick Cheney made an appearance at the Washington Nationals' home opener on Tuesday, where he threw out the ceremonial first pitch, perhaps so his wildly unpopular boss wouldn't have to risk being booed. Though the crowd booed Cheney lustily as soon as he first appeared at the game, some journalists portrayed the booing as being in response to Cheney's pitching performance -- his poor aim, it turns out, is not limited to hunting -- rather than his governing.

• • Weekly Standard editor William Kristol denounced special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's “politically motivated” investigation. But in 1998, Kristol called critics of independent counsel Ken Starr “Nixonian.”
  • Right-wing radio host Michael Savage referred to illegal immigrants as "vermin." Savage then distorted his own comments in response to a Media Matters item, falsely claiming that he had used the word “vermin” to describe the “leadership behind” the illegal immigrants, not the immigrants themselves.

Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.