Page 71 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Weapons of Mass Diversion 6 1

When No News is Old News

The Chicago Tribune reported that, "the public generally seems indifferent to
the issue [of the memos] or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the
reasons for the war."16 This, however, left open a crucial question which was
rarely asked: was the public indifferent because it did not care about the memos'
contents, or because much of the public never saw their contents? Most of the
American public did not have extensive, if any, exposure to the memos,
primarily as a result of the lack of attention paid to the issue throughout the
media and amongst political leaders. It was only after extensive coverage of the
memos in the independent media that a small segment of the public complained
to mass media outlets about their concerns over the lack of public exposure.
This, in turn, elicited more extensive coverage of the memos throughout the
press, as seen in many of the stories described above, although the issue,
disturbingly, received less attention then celebrity news stories such as the Laci
Peterson murder trial, which became a much larger issue in terms of round-the-
clock media coverage. Media critics complained that the mainstream press was
neglecting the story because it threatened to undermine the Bush administration
during a time of war. FAIR condemned the "profound defensiveness" of
reporters who de-emphasized the memo. According to FAIR, the common
argument that "the memo wasn't news because it contained no 'new'
information--only raises troubling questions about what journalists were doing
when they should have been reporting on the gulf between official White House
pronouncements and actual White House intention^."'^
In reality, mainstream media outlets did not ignore or downplay the memos
in 2002 and early 2003 because they were "old news." There was no systematic
effort during the run-up to the Iraq war to highlight the fact that the Bush and
Blair governments had decided well before March 2003 to invade Iraq,
regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were found. To have placed
such an emphasis on government deception at the time would likely have
encouraged a larger number of Americans to question what potential ulterior
motives the Bush administration possessed for wanting to invade Iraq. In the
end, no alternative explanations were provided in the vast majority of mass
media reporting.

The WMD Debacle Begins:
A Brief History

On September 12, 2002, President Bush formally announced to the international
community that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and
had to be disarmed. "[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons" and "Members of the Congress" and
"the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to
peace and must di~arm."'~ Throughout the next six months, the White House
initiated and pursued a long and arduous campaign to convince the American