Help this blog survive--and keep it ad-free--by buying one of my books, below right.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

One year ago: Media silence on the "surge"

There will be much wringing of hands today over the first anniversary of the “surge” announcement. The Democratic leadership has already declared the escalation a failure, despite the cut in violence on the ground. Republicans are trumpeting the “success.” What I would like to reflect on is this: At the critical turning point in America’s tragic adventure in Iraq, the editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers were surprisingly – even, appallingly – silent on President Bush’s likely decision to send thousands of more troops to the country.

After the plan was announced many of them did come out against it. But it was much, much too late. They dallied even as hawkish conservatives such as Oliver North, and dozens of other op-ed contributors (such as George Will and David Brooks), came out against the idea, and polls showed that 11% or less of the public backed the idea.

My survey of major papers’ editorial pages in the week before the Bush announcement found that very few said much of anything about the well-publicized “surge” idea, pro or con. The editorial page of The New York Times, for example, said nothing that week, beyond noting the "bleak realities" in Iraq, even as its regular columnists (including Tom Friedman) ripped the idea. Other papers often critical of the war, such as the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- among others -- were also silent. Oddly, all of them had hailed the recent Iraq Study Group report -- which opposed an escalation.

The Washington Post did not rouse itself to take a stand. It did run a major op-ed by Sen. John McCain, titled, "The Case for More Troops." Cleveland's Plain Dealer, Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Portland's The Oregonian, Long Island's Newsday and New Jersey's Bergen Record did not breathe a word. On the Sunday before the Bush speech, The New York Times again failed to discuss the surge, even though it ran a lengthy editorial attack on Bush called "The Imperial Presidency 2.0."

An E&P article that reviews how the press (eventually) responded:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003694993

The great Richard Thompson's response:

4 comments:

nffcnnr said...

Also noteworthy is the silence from most mainstream media on the failure of the "surge" to generate much political progress, which, according to the President, was its objective. Have you seen anything?

HoneyBearKelly said...

Remember the bi-partisan congressional group that was supposed to be headed by Lieberman?

What happened to that?

One Fly said...

Of course the media is silent. they have been a partner in this from the beginning. I think it may be worse than ever in what passes as news in this country. Our democracy is probably lost and we don't even know it.

soothsayer said...

nffcnnr says: "Also noteworthy is the silence from most mainstream media on the failure of the "surge" to generate much political progress, which, according to the President, was its objective. Have you seen anything?"

Reponse:
1....So who controls the US mainstream media?
Ans: Google "who controls US Media" and find out for yourself

2....So who promoted this war?
Ans: the neocons and the US media.

3....So who really loses and who benefits?
Ans: Part 1 USA; Part 2 who controls the US Media.