Krugman: To Tell the Truth (Journalists and Bush)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about George Bush.

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

And it's about damned time, too, isn't it?

I'm a little irked at everyone being sorry and not making a stronger case about it, though. For example, when the NYT made it's apology, it stated that the editors and the White House had been given false intelligence. Uh-uh. Not good enough. I want more and America deserves more.

At least 60 Minutes is getting it's teeth back. Cronkite has been a steady voice throughout this, as has Krugman, Ivins, and quite a few more. But they couldn't compete with blaring headlines and ticker announcements at the bottom of the screen.

I'm with Krugman--they should've and probably did know all along.

I can imagine all the mea culpas and soul baring that we are going to see on some of the talking head shows after the election.

No matter what the outcome of the election, they are going to be telling us how fooled they were, how sorry they are.

I am just too angry with them to have any sympathy. The media has failed their responsibility to us. When they start boo-hooing, I am going to say, "Yeah, so? You were in a better position to know than us. Live with yourselves!"

And they have not gone far enough. Have the NYT fire Miller. Have them make a less smarmy, wishy-washy apology.

If I did my job like they have, I would be out on the street.

...even the Dems who have consistently voted for Bush's policies up until recently. Everyone talks about how they were "taken in" by him.

Tell the truth--America was attacked and it scared us so much that we thought it would weaken America's image to question the President and his policies. So we let blind patriotism guide us in our voting, reporting, taking action...etc.

Will someone please just tell us the damned truth?!

The truth is not blind patriotism; but, just plain fear. The leaders like most of their constituents are no longer risk takers. Life over liberty now prevails where there was once liberty or death. Non adherence to principles subjugated to the lesser of two evils because of inconvenience and expediency. Lack of will to be anything other than sheep so as to maintain the illusion of belonging. That is what the media and leaders in particular and the population in general has become. The super patriotism expressed is only a symptom of what was really lost.

...but it was a unique situation, and of course--everyone was frightened.

The problem is, men like Bush and his crew are more exploitive of situations like that than are others.

Who would ever have thought they'd use America's first continental tragedy to further cement their illegal government?

Well, we should've known. They should've known. Krugman points this out. But, as you said, we were all scared, so we held hands with them and prayed with them in the spirit of bi-partisanship while they, behind closed doors, plotted to enhance their agenda.

Does this make us stupid or the governmental representatives stupid? No. Naive? Yes.

The best thing is that, once we get him out, we'd best never forget the hard lesson we learned from his administration being in power.

Being naive would imply being unaware and the media was not unaware. There were enough people crying out from the dark about what was happening. It is just that those in the media were intentionally not paying attention; therefore, the cries remained mostly unheeded in the dark. Krugman wrote many columns ( many of those reprinted in "The Great Unraveling") about what the Bush Administration was doing behind the scenes regarding the economy; but, little attention was paid to what he wrote beyond criticism. John Ashcroft's use of the Patriot Act was known (the greatest abuse being a Muslim lawyer in Oregon that we know of); but, has had little coverage. It was amazing to watch men who had demonstrated that they were willing to take the ultimate risk by putting on the uniform during a time of war cower while being called unpatriotic rather than stand against those who called them such. Especially when those words uttered about patriotism came from the lips of those who never served. Were they stupid, not hardly. Most likely they were more scared than stupid or just plain lazy feeding off what was being fed to them. It was an unwillingness to stand up to Bush and company that put them in the position they are in and because of that, I have no sympathy. Will they learn, I hope so; but, think not for most are returning to their old ways of doing things just as they have done in the past.

...although I don't get the sense that it takes more than pretty hair and flawless skin to be in so called "journalism" anymore. Which means that men like Krugman are in the minority and are not getting the word out to the masses.

I'm speaking of the masses and the reps in Washington when I refer to the naivete. I know you're going to argue that one down, too, though, so why don't we just agree to disagree about it. I'm getting pretty tired and haven't had much sleep.

:crazy:

Unless someone else agrees with me and wants to take up the argument in my stead?

I agree with you on the population in general; but, agree to disagree about our political representatives.

But that doesn't mean we pat them on the back for their criminal incompetence.

A free press has a function. The American media failed to perform that function.

During the last campaign, I remember a NYT article that was being used as a teaching aid. It was about an important Gore speech and in the first sentence it said Gore "tinkered" with the speech. I was tutoring the students who had that assigned article and I told them that one word clued me not to believe another word, because "tinkered" was belittling. They could have said "honed."

That was four years ago. Long before 9/11. The press has no excuse for the misleading pictures of Gore and Bush they presented to the electorate.

No mea culpa needed. Many others, indeed. And I'm glad to see Krugman, as always, calling it like it is. He is one of the handful of editorialists whose credibility and integrity remains in tact.

I hope they keep it up.

I think you need a welcome to DU (unless of course you post a green smiley).

This administration hasn't changed....it's the media starting to report the truth that has changed. For the true believers, this is a hard point to comprehend.

...at what's happened in their profession, especially since the rise of CNN during the first gulf war. Wolf Blitzer's live coverage of bombs and anti-aircraft fire over night time Baghdad created a massive ratings boost and a paradigm for reporting war with all the gusto and fanfare of Monday night football. The cable news channels suddenly realized what a cash cow a lovely little war could be.

There are important lessons to be learned from this latest example, particularly about how journalism, as a profession, sees itself in relation to the events which it both reports and profits from. There is a fundamental conflict of interest that journalism educators have to confront. Any journalism students or profs on DU? Do you see any response to these events in your journalism school?

Not a journalist or student, but I agree with you, mike_c.

I'm also tired of those who try to make the story, not report it!

Krugman told the truth through those dark days in the same paper that featured misinformation from Judith Miller.

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Krugman is the patriot who didn't misplace his values. True patriots opposed Bush and will continue to oppose him.

Salute to Dr. Krugman, the columnist and economist I admire most.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

that "the press seemed to reach a collective decision". If the press reaches a collective decision and then sticks to it, that's the dissemination of propaganda, not reporting.

Since when does patriotism require spineless and gutless behavior from everyone?

Looks like a way to say their real crime was loving their country too much. Yeah, right.

If they loved their country, they'd attempt to protect it from outright psychopaths in government.

"Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers."
I remember Rather alluding to being sent to Guantanamo early on. I think the whole process of denying access, press manipulation and intimidation was a process that was similar to brainwashing or hostage taking(from a reporters point of view) and would make an prize winning book and an invaluable resource to prevent this from happening again.

and really pissed off the professor when I changed to sociology. I was a GOOD reporter. I have mixed emotions about the paths that were open to me ... but I would NEVER have wanted to be a party to propaganda ... it makes one wonder ...

A lot of my former brethren are blank people. It's the only way I know how to describe them. They don't read. They don't seem to think. They behave like pack animals, charging in unison towards the target.

1. The news media are a profit-making enterprise. Reporting news that disparages a highly popular President is not good for profits.
2. The media are hypersensitive about being labeled "Liberal Media" They now bend over backward to avoid criticism of conservatives. Liberals and Democrats are fair game though.
3. Today's reporters are lazy, and some are airheads, they are on the air due to good looks and superb diction rather then a brain.
4. The media are turning on Bush now because his popularity has dropped and controversy sells ads. If his popularity soars again (new terrorist attacks, capture Osama, Iraq quiets down), then they will be his cheerleader again.

:toast: :kick:

"It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.

But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest."

Time will tell, I believe only a few have the guts to confront these criminals in office.

talk about people being confused, what about the AWOL story? There's nothing that was reported this year that couldn't have been reported in 2000. If anyone asks, why was this not a story then, there's absolutely no reason.