Bush vs. the media vs. the State Department

March 23, 2006

The White House and its allies have decided that they need to push back against the media is on Iraq. Over the weekend, Dick Cheney said, “There is a constant sort of perception, if you will, that’s created because what’s newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad.” Donald Rumsfeld added, “Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack.” At his president conference this week, Bush didn’t note the bad news in Iraq, he noted “the bad news on television.” Yesterday, a questioner at a Bush event insisted that “our major media networks don’t want to portray the good.”

On the other hand, we have people like NBC correspondent Richard Engel, who, earlier this week, said the situation on the ground “is actually worse than the images we project on television.”

Who’s right? By way of my friend Knob Boy, the Chicago Tribune’s Cam Simpson noted that Bush’s State Department isn’t sticking to the optimistic, only-highlight-the-positive script.

Repeated suggestions by the White House and friendly commentators that the news media’s selective displays of terrorist attacks in Iraq are warping American public opinion seem to belie several unclassified assessments of the situation produced by the U.S. government itself.

In fact, just two weeks ago the Bush administration publicly released a detailed report stating that “even a highly selective” inventory of the terrorist attacks inside Iraq “could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence” there.

Simpson was referring to the State Department’s “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” which includes a section on Iraq — and paints as bleak a picture as anything Americans will see on CNN. In fact, according to the report, the media isn’t exaggerating anything. As Simpson put it:

In several important respects, this report contradicts the thesis of the current White House public relations campaign on Iraq — to convince Americans that the “reality” in Iraq is far better than the constant stream of bad news they see on their televisions every night.

If anything, the State Department’s candid assessments would seem to indicate that things might be far worse than the press is currently able to report.

Time for a pushback against Bush’s State Department?

Earth to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld…

…to regain any creditability you have to TELL THE TRUTH!

Give it a try sometime boys.

  • Alibubba,
    Probably not for long. I’m sure some in the White House want to have it became part of the Pentagon, maybe under a new department name, like the Department of National Security or some other overlordish title.

  • I can see it now…

    Washington DC March 23 — Bush appoints 24 year-old former campaign volunteer to oversee massive restructuring of the outdated, pre-911 worldview State Department.

  • I doubt the WaPost will give State’s report much coverage. Some right winger would complain to the “ombudsman” and they’d be forced to hire another right-wing blogger.

  • We all know the popular mantra for television news, particularly local news: “If it bleeds, it leads.” Bush is complaining about the media’s modus operandi; he might as well spit into the wind.

    That said, the hearts and minds of the Iraqis could have be won with jobs and electricity. Since the fall of Baghdad, the two biggest failures of the U.S. reconstruction effort have been the wholesale dismantling of the Iraqi army and dismal effort to restore reliable electricity to the Iraqi power grid. The summer’s coming with its 110-degree in the shade temperatures. Lots of air conditioning would make lots of Iraqis happy. It’s a no brainer.

  • ‘Slip Kid no more’ reminded me of one of the most harrowing phrases in American foreign policy: “Winning the hearts and minds.” I remember that exact phrase from the Vietnam War, as well as its failure. In my opinion, if you don’t have the hearts and minds already on your side in the beginning of these sorts of conflicts, you’ll never “win” them.”

    But ‘slip kid’ is exactly right about the critical advantages of restoring basic services. That would be more welcome than our strategy of chasing our tails.

  • What I’d like to see reported is how much of the damage we inflicted when invading Iraq in 2003 have we rebuilt? We may be repainting and building schools, but that’s just whitewash when compared to the physical damage we’ve inflicted with JDAMS, conventional bombs, tanks and other high explosives. What I’ve seen on the tube are lots of pictures of bombed-out building standing as mute testament to the damage we’ve caused and haven’t lifted a finger to rectify.

    Then there are the daily raids where soldiers are kicking in doors, tearing down gates and shooting at houses where the opposition is suspected of hiding. Is there any progress in rebuilding any of that destruction? My bet is that on a daily basis the U.S. probably inflicts more total damage in Iraq than is repaired or built.

  • Quotes

    “There is a perception that’s created because what’s newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad.
    It’s not all the work that went on that day in 15 other provinces.”
    — Dick Cheney, Link

    “You know, Cheney’s right. Why do we focus so much on the 9-11 attacks
    and not all the work that went on that day in 49 other states?”

  • “You know, Cheney’s right. Why do we focus so much on the 9-11 attacks and not all the work that went on that day in 49 other states?” – Sparks

    Or why not focus on the 200 plus safe countries around the world rather than the three members of the ‘Axis of Evil’?

    • Comments are closed.