Will the Press Again Serve as 'Surge Protectors'?
Everyone remembers the media failures in the run-up to the war. But nearly as tragic was the performance by the press in the weeks before the "surge" was announced in January. Now what will happen over the next few days?
By Greg Mitchell
Editor and Publisher
(September 05, 2007) -- Over the next week, much will be written, pro and con, about General Petraeus’s report on the progress of the “surge” in Iraq and President Bush’s response. Since both men have pretty much already announced, or at least rehearsed, what they are going to say, the suspense is not exactly crippling. I’ll be writing more later, but for now I’d simply like to address the media’s responsibility to address, over the next few days, this key moment in our recent history with a steady gaze – which, as I will recount, was sadly lacking last winter in the weeks before the “surge” was announced.
Essentially, that Bush decision – and his rejection of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations at that time -- was the most tragic turn in this war since the original invasion, and like its overall performance in the run-up to the 2003 attack, the press (with notable exceptions) failed miserably.
Starting last November, some of us warned that Bush was bent on sending more troops to Iraq, but leading pundits and editorialists didn’t seem very alarmed about the prospect, embracing the notion that Bush, instead, would embrace the Iraq Study Group report as a face-saver -- even though the White House was already talking about sending more troops. When they did start to take that seriously, the media largely bought into the White House’s “surge” slogan rather than the more appropriate “escalation,” which some Democrats promoted.
Who was to say, I wrote in December, that this will actually prove to be a mere “surge” of troops versus a long-term buildup? What is the time limit for a “surge” to recede before it seems semi-permanent? A few months, as the White House has suggested? Or a year or more, as some of its outside backers demanded?
(Continued here.)
By Greg Mitchell
Editor and Publisher
(September 05, 2007) -- Over the next week, much will be written, pro and con, about General Petraeus’s report on the progress of the “surge” in Iraq and President Bush’s response. Since both men have pretty much already announced, or at least rehearsed, what they are going to say, the suspense is not exactly crippling. I’ll be writing more later, but for now I’d simply like to address the media’s responsibility to address, over the next few days, this key moment in our recent history with a steady gaze – which, as I will recount, was sadly lacking last winter in the weeks before the “surge” was announced.
Essentially, that Bush decision – and his rejection of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations at that time -- was the most tragic turn in this war since the original invasion, and like its overall performance in the run-up to the 2003 attack, the press (with notable exceptions) failed miserably.
Starting last November, some of us warned that Bush was bent on sending more troops to Iraq, but leading pundits and editorialists didn’t seem very alarmed about the prospect, embracing the notion that Bush, instead, would embrace the Iraq Study Group report as a face-saver -- even though the White House was already talking about sending more troops. When they did start to take that seriously, the media largely bought into the White House’s “surge” slogan rather than the more appropriate “escalation,” which some Democrats promoted.
Who was to say, I wrote in December, that this will actually prove to be a mere “surge” of troops versus a long-term buildup? What is the time limit for a “surge” to recede before it seems semi-permanent? A few months, as the White House has suggested? Or a year or more, as some of its outside backers demanded?
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home