- Originally published in the Baltimore Sun on Mar 12, 2004 [here]
University of Maryland study critical of WMD coverage: Media said to buy administration line
By David Folkenflik
March 10, 2004- A new study from the University of Maryland argues that
the media swallowed whole the claims of government officials about the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and elsewhere. "It
has been irresistible for policymakers to use threats of WMD as
powerful tools of public persuasion and as forceful rationales for
policy initiatives," writes Susan D. Moeller, the University of
Maryland journalism professor who led the study . "It has been equally
irresistible for the media to report both the doomsayer arguments and
the defense and security arguments verbatim."
The president sets the agenda, she claims, while reporters, constricted
by arrangements with unnamed sources, do not skeptically scrutinize his
statements. Moeller gives the press apoor grade, saying the public
lacks suitable context to assess the claims about whether foreign
powers and terrorists are posing athreat with weapons of mass
destruction.
The study examined three periods of coverage: May 1998, in the wake of
India-Pakistan tensions over nuclear arms and public concern about
Russian weapons; October 2002, after the U.S. Congress authorized the
use of force against Iraq; and May 2003, at the outset of the U.S. hunt
for possible weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. news outlets studied included The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, U.S. News & World
Report and National Public Radio. Three British publications were also
examined: the Economist, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. In the
Maryland study ,ahalf-dozen reporters were singled out for praise:
Barton Gellman, Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank of the Post; Bob Drogin
of the Los Angeles Times; and David Sanger and William Broad of the New
York Times. On the whole , however, the media failed the public, she
concluded.
"Poor coverage of WMD resulted less from political bias on the part of
journalists, editors and producers than from tired journalistic
conventions," Moeller writes. "When media cover WMD issues, events and
policies, they should strive to get more perspectives higher up in
their breaking news stories - and to get more of their sources on the
record."
The study's conclusions come on the heels of deep criticism within the
profession over the extent to which the media scrutinized the
administration's claims that Saddam Hussein's forces held weapons of
mass destruction before last spring's invasion of Iraq. To date,
U.S.-led occupying forces have failed to find convincing proof of the
existence of biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry in Iraq. Amore
tangible threat in North Korea, which acknowledges possessing nuclear
arms, receives less alarmist coverage, Moeller finds.
Critics writing in the New York Review of Books and Slate magazine,
among other publications, have subjected the reporting of Judith Miller
of the New York Times to withering attacks over her coverage of weapons
of mass destruction. Miller's reliance on Iraqi defectors and exiles
and their sympathizers within the Bush administration has led, some
critics say, to an echo chamber effect: Iraqi defectors makes claims,
often not for direct attribution; they are validated by U.S. officials,
often also not by name, and then exile leaders comment on those
American impressions.
The Maryland study approvingly quoted acritique of Miller that appeared
in the trade publication Editor & Publisher that called her "
abooster of the invasion who had hyped the threat of weapons of mass
destruction" and said she had "essentially surrender[ed] her detached
judgment to the Pentagon."
In an interview yesterday, Miller declined to address directly the
Maryland study , saying it did not dignify aresponse because its author
had not called her to ask about her work. "I reflected the views of the
intelligence community as they existed at that time," Miller said,
adding she had sought divergent views from other sources. "Who else am
I supposed to talk to?" Miller asked. "People who don't understand that
don't understand our business."
To show that she was willing to report skeptically, Miller pointed to
two 1,200-word articles from late January 2003: an article about the
tricky nature of intelligence gathered from Iraqi defectors and an
interview with former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, who
said he saw nothing to justify awar.
"I find much of the criticism bewildering and really ill-informed,"
Miller said. "They don't bother to read the stories completely."
Jack Shafer, media critic and editor-at-large for Slate, argued that's
an insufficient defense. " The intelligence community was very
conflicted on this issue," Shafer said yesterday. "She was reflecting
the intelligence community she wanted to believe. Did she not read
Walter Pincus in the Post? ... She consistently gave prominence to
defectors and others whose statements proved to be wrong."
But he said he could not agree with the university study's near-blanket
critique of the media . "I don't really buy the belief the newspapers
bought the administration line," Shafer said.
The study was sponsored by the Center for International and Security
Studies at Maryland .The full text can be found at www.cissm.umd.edu
-the center's Web site