Third Lie's a Charm

I have family in the (Canadian) media, so I'm always wary of out-and-out condemnations of the news business for allegations of incomepetence, ideologically favoring the right, or many of the other accusations that get thrown around. I admit that family ties aren't the most logically sound reasons for caution, but what can I say.

That said, it seems to me that with the Washington Post's front-page story of GOP patronage in Iraq today, we now have three stories that the mainstream media - two of them from the WaPo, one from the New York Times - that should have been widely known and repeatedly cited during the 2004 election campaign, and were not (to my memory.)

The first example comes from James Risen and the New York Times, who sat on the revelations that Bush and the NSA were illegally spying on American citizens for over a year, claiming the need for "additional reporting." In fact, the White House asked for, and received, a delay in the NYT's publication. Whether the article was delayed for over a year because of the White House's request, as has been alleged, or because Risen wanted to bump his own book sales, is really immaterial. The facts are pretty clear that the Times had this story, it was ready to run before the election, and this information was deliberately witheld from the public.

The second example comes from Thomas Ricks, who's recent book, Fiasco, documents the history of the Army's pointed refusal to apply, or even learn, the lessons of Vietnam and counter-insurgency warfare in Iraq. Ricks accounting of these errors begins well before November, 2004, and indeed Billmon has pointed out that his book flat-out refutes much of his earlier reporting from the war in Iraq. The fact that the US Army was blowing any possibility of success in Iraq is something that the American people should have known before the election, but Ricks, like Risen, sat on the story until he had a book contract.

The final example is from today's WaPo, and is not "news" to anyone who's been following blogs, but I suspect it never got A1 placement in a Sunday edition of a national newspaper before today. Chandrasekeran's piece today is also an example of a story that was sat on to husband the impact for future book sales. Once again, the fact that the Republicans were turning Iraq in to a summer camp for Young Republicans might, just maybe, have been a useful piece of data for the media to bring to national attention before the 2004 election.

Let me be clear: I don't believe that it's the media's job to win elections for Democrats. I don't believe it's the media's job to act as hitmen for hire, attacking the Republicans for everything. But here we have three concrete examples of government criminality, military incompetence, and political patronage that have collectively led to disaster for the American people. These are issues of national importance, and they could all have been widely reported in time for the American people to make a decision on whether or not they wanted to re-elect George W. Bush.

Not only could they have been reported, they should have been, if the media actually believes that it has any responsibility to the American public. Not only did they not do so, they actively and knowingly concealed these stories from the public in the first two cases. Even if this wasn't at White House request, the more venal explanation of bumping book sales is hardly exculpatory.

The problems of the American political system go way beyond the current case of one-party rule. If the media believes it is more important to increase book sales than inform the electorate in a timely fashion, the whole justification for freedom of the press is threatened. While the Democrats are busy holding hearings to get to the bottom of the tar pond that is the Bush Administration, they might spare some time to ask Ricks, Risen, and Chandrasekeran some questions, too.