April 21, 2004
It is part of the media's job to cover the White House. Yet there must be a difference between reporting on what the president says and repeating what the president says.
As a result of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the rise in American casualties and the attention of the 9/11 Commission, the media today are looking skeptically at presidential statements and policies on WMD.
But that is a relatively recent trend. In the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, the media slavishly repeated the administration's assertion that a core objective of the war on terror was to prevent Iraqi WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists. While that may have been a common fear, no terrorist organization had committed an act of true "mass" destruction using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons - much less one involving materiel gained from Saddam Hussein.
-snip-
The coverage not only disseminated the administration's logic, but because it didn't offer equally prominent alternative perspectives, it also validated it. When reporters did take on the administration, their stories were often buried by their editors.
more...
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpmoe213766678apr21,0,495497.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines