I am often hard on news people. In fairness, they do a tough job. It is not always easy to find and convey the truth.
An AP story headlined "McCain lacks faith in Rumsfeld" that ran in the Albuquerque Tribune December 14 got me thinking about this. In it, McCain said he believes Rumsfeld neither sent enough troops nor the right types of troops to Iraq. Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita’s response included the statement that Rumsfeld has "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders…." Etc. Etc.
How does a reporter warn the reader that the Pentagon is lying? You cannot say, "Di Rita’s statement was a lie." The usual approach is to find a credible source to contradict him. But that is not always easy, not if the source must go on the record. True, if you had unlimited space, you might give the reader background (as I will in the next graph), but you do not have all that room.
(When Rumsfeld cashiered General Shinseki, he sent the brass a message. Shinseki, you remember, made the mistake of telling the Congress we need to send 350,000 soldiers to Iraq. So nobody who wants to keep his job will follow his lead. Telling Rumsfeld privately won’t work, either. He doesn’t want to deal with the politics of getting more troops. They would have to come from US bases in Europe (difficult) or a draft (impossible).
Now, with this in mind, consider another story – from the NY Times News Service - that ran the same day. Here is the first paragraph:
"The Pentagon is engaged in a bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad, senior Defense Department civilians and military officers say."
Down in paragraph three:
"Critics of the proposals say such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon’s credibility, leaving the American public and a world audience skeptical of anything the Defense Department and military say……"
Think about that - despite the Pentagon’s record in the war on Iraq – one miscalculation after another – and its unwillingness to admit to error, the New York Times thinks the Department of Defense has credibility to lose.
Or thinks it must write that way.
And maybe the Times is right. Maybe the American public, if not "a world audience" still believes the Pentagon.
Scary.