http://mediamatters.org/items/200702140007Summary: 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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
