Famed War Reporter Joseph L. Galloway Hits Media On Iraq Coverage

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003724996

As the fifth anniversary of the start of the war nears, Joe Galloway, one of the most respected war correspondents ever, looks back at press coverage of Iraq, and concludes: "In war, truth is too often the first casualty, and it is not just a president or a secretary of defense or assorted official spokesmen who do the killing. Our brothers and sisters in the media also participate in the execution."

By Joseph L. Galloway

NEW YORK (March 14, 2008) --

In war, truth is too often the first casualty, and it is not just a president or a secretary of defense or assorted official spokesmen who do the killing. Our brothers and sisters in the media also participate in the execution. Greg Mitchell has taken that as his lesson in "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits – and the President – Failed on Iraq" and in so doing has done a service to future generations in our business, and I believe, for readers of the news.

Looking back to that fall of 2002 when war drums were beating loudly and the president and his closest advisers spoke with certainty – and deceit – about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the danger he ostensibly posed to our country and our friends and allies, most in the media either swallowed it whole or timidly refused to do their jobs and question the official rationale for war.

The great gray lady, The New York Times, and the voice inside the Beltway, The Washington Post, put dozens of reports on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's quest for a nuclear weapon on their front pages. The few reports that even suggested that some experts were questioning those claims were buried deep inside, among the Viagra ads.

Did the national outburst of patriotism and an epidemic of American flag decals and flag lapel pins on the expensive suits of television anchors frighten those who had long believed that their newspapers set the nation's agenda?

[groovedaddy]

1. Why haven't all the lies wrecked Bush's credibility? Because the msm

continues to play along.
That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's now a FACT that they lied us into the war and told lies all along the way. STILL, the msm treats Bush as though he has credibility. MSM = a key cog in the corporate megalith now running the country and that's why they perpetuate the coniving, lying sack of dung known as george w bush!

[calimary]

2. This should be KICKED!!!

I hope we see a lot more of these. I think the media needs a rather severe dose of rubbing-their-noses-in-it to start bringing them around - and yanking them off the company line. Maybe they have to be shamed in public by pieces like this - into DOING THEIR JOBS. Maybe - um - pretending Clinton did this and applying the kind of relentless proctology they gave him. Our media is supposed to be watchdogs, NOT lapdogs. Every last drop of blood from this God-forsaken war is on THEIR hands, too, because they were collaborators of the First Order. HIDEOUSLY DISGRACEFUL!

I'm glad to see stuff like this coming out, pointed fingers and all. There should be a lot more. Sometimes a little mortification is good for the soul.

[laststeamtrain]

3. K & R for Ol' Joe, a grand guy. Plain truth. Straight, no chaser. n/t

[Supersedeas]

4. SPOT ON!!