Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Still, there's more to this. Here's the thing. The honest reporting of terror probably would have made the case for war. Yes. And here's where we get hypothetical:
|
So why didn't we have this case made for the war? You're saying it's because Saddam put the clamps on the media and the media went along so they'd still be able to report from Iraq.
OK, let's let that one ride--although I've got to think any network with a half-decent PR department could have done it, and turn their explusion into part of the story, with a huge spin about their defense of Truth, Justice, and the American Way(tm). But let's ignore that.
The media are not responsible for justifying any case to go to war. They are responsible to make cash for their shareholders/owners. Some outlets do this by publishing sober news analysis of international events. Some do it by displaying video of a fire or crime scene from your local city at 6:00 every night. Some do it by explaining that Britney Spears says she's a good girl, even if she does snog Madonna and pose for Rolling Stone in her undies. (This last from the Newsmakers page of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer.)
The responsibility for any justification, or lack thereof, must lie with our government. So we have to ask ourselves, why didn't our government make the case you suggest? Because they didn't know the facts? Because they tried to make the case but Saddam's lap dogs in the media wouldn't run the stories? Because.....?
I'm not going to defend the jackals of the press. But don't give them the responsibility for making the case for war.