Commentary—

McClellan Bottom Line: Reporters Were Patsies

By Peter Hart

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan sparked a political firestorm by criticizing the Bush White House with the release of his new book What Happened. But the reaction from many in the elite media to McClellan’s accusations that reporters were “deferential, complicit enablers” who failed to challenge the White House case for the Iraq War demonstrates that the White House is not the only institution that resents being held accountable.

NBC anchor Brian Williams and ABC anchor Charles Gibson defended the media’s performance in the lead up to the war by explaining that journalists did not have sufficient access to the inspectors — a poor excuse, given that the inspections process was well-documented by the United Nations and by independent reporters.

Gibson offered a more direct defense of the media: “You know, you go back to the Powell speech. There was a lot of skepticism raised about that. I can remember getting in trouble with administration officials because of asking questions that they didn’t feel comfortable with. I think the questions were asked. There was just a drumbeat of support from the administration, and it is not our job to debate them.”

Actually, as Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) pointed out at the time, the overall coverage of Powell’s speech at the UN was overwhelmingly credulous, despite the fact that there was plenty of information on the record that questioned his claims. And Gibson’s objection to the idea that the media should “debate” the White House is a straw man; the real issue is how badly the media covered the very active debate that was going on before the war.

A FAIR study of network news coverage of that period (January 30 to February 12, 2003) found a remarkable tilt toward the White House’s side, despite the fact that a majority of the US public favored more time for diplomacy and inspections. Of the US guests who appeared as sources on the evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official US sources — Senator Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.) — expressed skepticism or opposition to the war. The study also found that of all 393 sources, only three (less than one percent) were identified with organized protests or antiwar groups.

On CNN (May 28, 2008), Wolf Blitzer also offered up a defense of his network’s reporting: “We raised the important questions. I can’t tell you how many times we had Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei, from the International Atomic Energy Agency, on my shows, and a lot of the other shows on CNN, where they suggested, you know what, they don’t see the evidence about the weapons of mass destruction. They’re not convinced.”

Yet CNN’s treatment of former weapons inspector Scott Ritter hardly provides evidence to back up Blitzer’s depiction of CNN as a strong, independent news source. CNN news executive Eason Jordan stated on air: “Well, Scott Ritter’s chameleonlike behavior has really bewildered a lot of people.... US officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility.” When Paula Zahn interviewed Ritter, she suggested he was in league with Saddam Hussein: “People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam’s Kool-Aid.”

Even MSNBC host Chris Matthews — who had greeted Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech by gushing that “We’re proud of our president” and referring to Bush as a “hero” — offered a self-serving recollection of his program Hardball’s work in telling “the two-part story of how the Iraq war was sold under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein posed a nuclear threat to the United States.”

In response to the former White House press secretary’s public criticisms, many journalists seemed to express bewilderment, if not contempt, at McClellan’s switch from water-carrier to whistleblower. Current CNN reporter Ed Henry asked: “So, you do have to wonder... just who is the real Scott McClellan, the one who was constantly pushing back on the media back then, and doing a lot of the White House talking points, or the one who now thinks that those talking points were not true?”

Posing the question at all seems to suggest an unfamiliarity with what press secretaries do, which is repeat their bosses’ talking points, true or not. The fact that some reporters seem confused by this is a significant concern — evidence that this White House, or any other, will have little trouble misleading the corporate press.

(Peter Hart is an analyst with the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). FAIR is the New York City-based, national media watch group that offers well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship.)