“You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”
William Randolph Hearst’s sensationalist (and clearly prejudiced) reporting in his New York Journal of the sinking of the USS Maine has become widely recognized as a major cause for the Spanish-American War over 100 years ago.
Certainly, standards in journalism have come a long way since the days of Hearst’s grossly incendiary publications. But coverage during August given to the national debate surrounding a possible invasion of Iraq by The New York Times has been dangerously one-sided, as they have attempted to shape public opinion outside of its often-biased op-ed and editorial pages.
Rather than build public support in favor of war a la Hearst, the Times (while not nearly as deceitful as Hearst’s Journal) has done the opposite, using not only the editorial pages but also news pages to curry opinion against an American-led assault in Iraq.
Each day the Times reports about a mounting opposition to the war despite the fact that public opinion polls have remained relatively unchanged since February.
Throughout the summer, the Times front page frequently covered the obvious “with a sense of discovery,” as George Will termed it in the Aug. 22 Chicago Sun-Times. Stories reminding readers that the “U.S. Aided Iraq in [Iran-Iraq] War .,” that an “American Arsenal . Is Being Built Up to Confront Saddam Hussein” or that an Iraqi invasion would be “expensive” certainly spell out the obvious, but offer dubious news value otherwise.
Adam Garfinkle stated in the National Review Online, “That the United States aided Iraq in order to prevent an Iranian victory in that war is well known to anyone with more than a casual interest in such matters, and was completely justifiable. This is what great powers do in regions like the Persian Gulf; if they don’t want to dominate the place directly, they play offshore balancer.” Yet The New York Times found it necessary to report this news because it might sway public opinion against a war with Iraq, or at least make proponents of an invasion appear hypocritical.
In August, Congress began hearings on prospects for invading Iraq, querying leading experts outside of the U.S. government. During the hearings, Richard Butler, the Australian in charge of the U.N.’s weapons inspections program in Iraq until 1998 (when inspectors were forced out by Hussein), said, “What there is now is evidence that Saddam has reinvigorated his nuclear weapons program.” The Times omitted this part of Butler’s testimony from its story.
Another leading authority on Iraqi weapons, Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear technician who defected in 1994, testified that Saddam Hussein could have nuclear weapons developed within three years, or even earlier, corroborating Butler’s statement. While most of the national media, including The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, presented Hamza’s testimony, The New York Times spared no ink for a seemingly central authority with such forceful contentions.
As Jack Kelly articulated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Times recounted the testimony of Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who warned, “it is incredibly dangerous to be dismissive” of Iraqi forces, while failing to mention the statement of Salah Halaby, a retired Egyptian general, who said, “The Iraqi army has no chance whatsoever to stand steadfast, and will fall like a sandcastle.”
Of course, The New York Times is certainly the most acclaimed and respected newspaper in the country, and this makes the newspaper’s editorializing all the more egregious. Even if this is a case of negligence (which seems unlikely given that such an oversight could be made at the same time by both the writer and the subsequent editors) in reporting both sides factually, it is the responsibility of any newspaper to ensure that both sides have been adequately heard.
The New York Times claims to report “all the news that’s fit to print.”
By trying to direct the national dialogue on the Iraq debate, the Times has done a disservice to itself and the public. The Times should strive to inform its readers of “all the news,” not just that which it finds “fit to print.”
When a newspaper misuses its power and reputation, it can cause more damage than simply that which harms its own name. It has the power to seriously influence national policy and public opinion. Just ask William Randolph Hearst.
Nick Timiraos is a freshman in the College.
