politics

EDITORIAL

Is Bush Leapfrogging the National Media or the Truth?

10/15/03

On Monday, October 13, President Bush granted exclusive interviews to five regional broadcasting companies in an effort—the first of its kind—to bypass the national media in order to reach millions of Americans with his message of prosperity in Iraq. Bush’s decision to avoid larger media outlets, plus recent comments, illustrate a basic distrust of the media on the part of his administration that has only increased as the war in Iraq has dragged on.

“We’re making good progress in Iraq,” Bush said last week at a fundraiser. “Sometimes it’s hard to tell it when you listen to the filter.” Later in the week, Bush spoke again of the national media’s perceived bias. “We’re making great progress—I don’t care what you read about.” In early September, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that opposition to the U.S. President was encouraging Washington's enemies and hindering his “war against terrorism.” And on Friday, Rumsfeld ratcheted up his ire towards the media’s coverage of Iraq. "The part of the picture that's negative is being emphasized, and the part of the picture that's positive is not," he said.

In the first week of the war, when the media, every single piece of it, was promoting Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were no complaints from the Bush Administration. When images of the toppling Saddam statue were broadcast incessantly and we were led to believe that the Iraqi people were welcoming U.S. troops into Baghdad—as Jerusalem had Jesus Christ 2,000 years earlier—the administration was all smiles and back slaps.

Of course, the news media’s trumpet blaring has shifted since then. But the Bush Administration is in large part responsible for the break in trust between the Administration and its messengers that was forged with the misinformation and misrepresentations concerning weapons of mass destruction. Barring exceptions, the news media often resembles a pack of hyenas that cower and hoot in the face of might, but attack in vicious fashion once they smell blood. It’s a time-worn reality and one the Bush Administration must simply face.

There is also an irony involved here. In an interview with FOX News’ Brit Hume that was aired on September 22, Bush was asked, “How do you get your news?” “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving,” the President responded. “I rarely read the stories and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.”

Bush went on to clarify why he doesn’t read newspapers. “You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media,” he said. “But I also understand that a lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news.” All of this begs the question: how can Bush say, as he did last week, “We’re making great progress—I don’t care what you read about,” when he himself does not read?

The Administration has found other ways to skirt the national media to get its message out. This weekend the Gannett News Service reported that eleven separate newspapers ran identical letters from different soldiers with the 2nd battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment in Iraq. One Washington newspaper, The Olympian, received two identical letters signed by different hometown soldiers. The five-paragraph letter talked about the soldiers’ work to restore order and services in the Northern Iraq city of Kirkuk, where the unit is based. “The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a large part of why that has happened,” the letter states.

“The fruits of all our soldiers’ efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today,” the letter reads elsewhere. “There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.”

A sergeant that was reached told GNS that his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of their hometown newspapers. Six soldiers that spoke with GNS said they agreed with the letter, but none said they had written it. One said he had not even signed it while another soldier recuperating in a hospital from leg wounds did not know about the letter until his father congratulated him for getting it published in the local newspaper.

The Bush Administration’s recent efforts to leapfrog the national media through either comments to smaller news services or form letters that misrepresent their true nature smack of political campaigning. Bush was more than satisfied with the national media when it was fawning over the Iraq War or broadcasting his carefully-orchestrated landing on an aircraft carrier. That coverage was certainly as one-sided as Bush and Co. believe it to be now in reverse. There is an obvious point here and one that bears repeating. As president, Bush has a duty to tell the truth and must remember that he is first and foremost to serve the American people before his own self-interests.