Greg Mitchell's So Wrong for So Long

Last night, in my Jimbo Hoyer persona, I interviewed Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher at Virtually Speaking.  You can find a podcast of the interview at the VS link.  

You can buy the book at Amazon.

For me, reading this was like reading an epistolary version of Anna Karenina. It's a collection of columns about the media coverage of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, arranged chronologically.  The reader knows the train wreck that is going to happen, but can't stop turning the page.

There's a lot here, but I want to pull out just a few things.

First, one of the themes that carries all the way through the book is that the administration, and the military, were obsessively concerned with how things looked. They were very deeply concerned about public perception, from Powell's deeply flawed presentation through the faked up heros, like Lynch and Tillman to the outright denial of facts on the ground that didn't match the spin.  The mistreatment of Lynch and Tillman was particularly galling; manipulating the truth in order to manufacture false images and lying narrative is a disservice to both these soldiers.

Disservice runs through the chapters. Soldiers without armored vehicles, a story hidden until a reporter gets the question asked of Rumsfeld, to the sound of cheers in the audience.  Vietnam journalist (the only civilian recipient of the Bronze Star, for saving the lives of American soldiers in Vietnam) Joe Galloway writing:

These are the best kids we've ever had in the military and this is the best Army and Marine Corps I've seen in 40 years of marching with them. And I tell you, this ar is not worth one of their lives, let alone 1400 of them.

That's from a column date January 25, 2005.

The question that really kept coming up last night was why? Why did the NYTimes front Judy Miller and bury other staffers who cast cold water on her reports? Why did the television broadcast hew so closely to the administration's line? And when the administration was proven to have been lying, why did they continue to act like stenographers? Indeed, today, I am hearing transparently false reports treated with great seriousness by the radio station I've been listening to today.

The book provides several answers.  First, there's self-censorship, exacerbated by embed status. Embeds were saying "We" in no time, and often became part of the team. Then there were the editors and producers back in the US. They were getting pressure from the administration to stay with the American (there is no other word) propaganda.  And it really looks like viewers and readers made a difference. When a newspaper ran a photograph of a American soldier killed in action, it received a torrent of hate mail, accusing the paper of treason, and worse.

Early on, of course, 9/11 provided an excuse to kill the story about the Secret Service and Jenna's Excellent Vacation in Mexico. You had little Tommy Friedman telling the Iraqis to "suck on this" and other pundits and editors on board with a program of the aggressive use of force--even though there was no apparent threat to the US.

For me, the question is why is it still going on? Why do I have to look at foreign newspaper in order to get a straight story?  I've given up on television entirely; their world view matches up exactly with the warmongering views that the administration wants presented to the public.

There's lot in this book. Do buy a copy.

Update:

Click here to listen to podcast

Depending on how your media player is configured, this will either
a) load your player and start playing right away
b) download the entire thing and then start playing