With the US-led war and occupation of Iraq about to enter a new phase, some major American news organisations are belatedly admitting that they allowed the George W Bush Administration and Iraqi dissidents to deceive them over the reasons for going to war.

In the lead-up to and during the first phase of the war, the American press largely echoed the White House message that the war was about weapons of mass destruction. "It's a slam dunk," boasted CIA director George Tenet before he eventually fouled out of the game last Thursday.

Bush. offering himself as the only choice to lead America out of danger

Debate of war coverage resurfaced with disclosures by the New York Times, arguably the most influential US newspaper, that it was duped by "the cunning campaign" of those who wanted the world to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.
The newspaper's ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, said Monday (May 31) the Times dutifully ran stories that "pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets on the shoulders of editors", suggesting that soldier and journalist were almost indistinguishable.

The half-page critique of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq followed a separate admission signed by "the editors" last week that said the newspaper had not been as "rigorous as it should have been" in questioning Iraqi exiles.
The self-flagellation comes as news organisations are gearing for a return to Iraq in numbers to cover what is supposed to be the formal hand-over of power from coalition forces to an Iraqi government on June 30.
Some are expecting that the hand-over is a potential flashpoint for conflict in the country, with growing concerns that the media could be in the firing line.
News organisations, quite rightly, don't want their people to be shot or killed in the conflict, which is unlikely to end with the symbolism of June 30.

At least 40 media workers have been killed - including 33 journalists - since the war on Iraq was launched over a year ago.
American forces have been confirmed as responsible for the deaths of seven journalists, including employees from the BBC, Reuters, Telecinco and Arab TV stations al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera, the UK Guardian reported.
Against that background, representatives from major news organisations, including Reuters, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, al-Jazeera, Fox News, CBS, ABC, Associated Press, Spanish TV station Telecino, and the Wall Street Journal, met with US military brass last week to discuss how to reduce the number of media deaths caused by US forces.
War correspondents know that what they do is dangerous, but they also have a right to feel that they should not be targeted by shooters for what they do, although we know that shooting the messenger is a nasty old habit.

But the concern of the news organisations cannot be only about safety. They should also re-examine how they cover the war and the transition process.
Making the round of media interviews to hail the selection of the latest set of Iraqis to assume nominal control of the country, President Bush's message was clear:
With only five months before the presidential election, and opinion polls showing more and more Americans disapproving of his performance and questioning the war, Bush is offering himself as the only choice to lead the nation out of danger and seeking to shore up his credentials as commander-in-chief.

At the United Nations, and around the world, US image has taken a battering. Restoring much of that will depend on what happens on the ground in Iraq, as well as the final shape of a new UN Security Council detailing the transition process.
So far, the draft on the table in New York falls short of what key Council members like France, Russia and China, as well as many Iraqis, are demanding.
The draft maps out the hand-over to a 'sovereign' Iraqi government but provides that the US-led force will have "authority to take all necessary measures for security". As translated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, that means the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will not have authority over military strategy and operations.

The draft also grants Iraq "full control over its own natural resources" but limits that control by "temporarily maintaining international control over its oil revenue fund".
Iraq's most powerful Shia leader, Ayatollah Sistani, has a different view of sovereignty. For him, what's required is "full and complete sovereignty in all its political, economic, military and security forms, and an endeavour to erase all traces of the occupation".
The cleric wields enormous influence over Iraq's 60 per cent Shia majority, and reports out of Iraq say that without his approval the interim government will have no legitimacy.

The question now is whether the press will follow the White House lead and 'stay on message' or whether the spectacle of self-flagellation at the Times will lead to more even-handed coverage of a complex and dangerous story.
New York-based author and media critic, Michael Massing has been particularly harsh on the journalistic lapses at the Times because of its leadership position in the media and its influence, which spreads beyond America.
In Massing's view, the Times set a pro-war tone on Iraq that many other papers followed. For him, that was the "pack mentality - one of the most entrenched and disturbing features of American journalism".

Times ombudsman Okrent, meanwhile, said he hoped the failings would produce not further contrition, but rather "a series of aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs".
"The aggressive journalism that I long for... would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the WMD stories, but how the Times was used to further their cunning campaign." I hope so, too.
For me, there are at least two important lessons from the confessions at the New York Times:
The first is that democratic debate in the US, in Jamaica or anywhere else can be greatly harmed when a government's desire to misinform for political expediency finds support in journalism that suspends critical thinking.
The second is the willingness by the editors of the newspaper to admit that they got the story wrong and will, hopefully, take steps to prevent a recurrence. There's something in that for all of us.

- Claude Robinson is senior fellow in the Research and Policy Group, Mona School of Business at the UWI
kcr@cwjamaica.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World