News media mostly fail war reporting once again
Initial reports leave out vital information about why the US bombed Iran
In the wind up to the second gulf war, much of the reporting by the NY Times swallowed whole the Bush administration lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Not all media followed suit, but many did.
Two decades later, initial reports of President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran indicate that major media appear to be falling in lock step once again, this time not even bothering to question the president’s decision.
The headlines trumpet Sunday morning’s preemptive bombings appropriately enough, but the subheads – and the vast majority of stories, as well – fail to address any question of why we are yet again at war with another Middle Eastern country.
A few of the representative headlines and subheads from today’s published editions are below:
NY Times
Head: U.S. ATTACKS IRAN’S NUCLEAR SITES
Subhead: B-2s Drop ‘Payload’ of Bombs as Nation Enters Israel’s War
Washington Post
Head: U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear facilities
Subhead: Attack marks escalation of conflict
LA Times
Head: U.S. attacks Iranian nuclear sites
Subhead: American military joins Israel’s war on Tehran, Trump announces
The subheads don’t even bother to hint at any potential reasons behind the bombing. Even if Trump doesn’t say why, it is up to the news media to explore the possible reasons.
Media generally failed to mention in the stories that the reasons claimed by Israel for its earlier attack on Tehran aren’t supported by intelligence reports from anyone but themselves.
The U.S. attacks follow Trump’s rejection of his own national security chief’s testimony to Congress in March that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program halted in 2003. He offered no evidence to support his claims. In addition, the day before U.S. bombed Iran, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency declared that he had seen no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb.
Gabbard now claims that her words were taken out of context by “dishonest media,” contradicting the video evidence linked above.
The question of why the U.S. has started a bombing campaign against a country needs to be addressed and at least mentioned in the stories from the very beginning, with links to separate stories that provide analysis and context that explore the reasons for such monumental decisions.
The problem is that very few of these analysis stories exist.
There ought to be stories that explore why Trump is following Israel’s lead on bombing Tehran. Netanyahu has claimed for decades that Iran is on the cusp of having nuclear bombs, without providing any actual evidence.
Why Trump has accepted this position seems like a worthy question every major news organization ought to be reporting on. I found more stories that explored a risk closer to Trump’s heart – namely to his political future – than those that explored the risks to the American people and to American interests abroad.
What continues to astonish me is the refusal of reporters and editors to accept that everything coming out of the White House is a lie. By excusing lies as hyperbole, reporters and editors fall into the traps you accurately highlight. How many outlets, for example, parroted Trump's quote about having "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capability as fact? Now we learn, not unexpectedly, that this was yet another lie, wrapped in chest-thumping.