Where have all the Media Gone, Long Time Passing

Since the dust of the 9/11 attacks settled, I have been watching the media coverage of our government's reactions. I have written extensively, here and in other publications that the News Media in the United States want war, in order to boost ratings.

Bush quickly used the term “crusade” to describe attacking Muslims. In a word he had turned the situation from finding those responsible for attacking America to a clash of worldwide civilizations. We were not as aware of it here, since we think of the term more as a reflection of what Ike said about invading Europe in 1944, but the rest of the world was.

In the early days after 9/11, people in the coffee shops were talking about attacking, not about whom to attack, just attack. There was very little opposition. We jumped into Afghanistan helping locals displace the ruling powers. At least Kabul was somewhat liberated, if no other part of the country was. Then the U.S. Administration turned to Iraq.

As Eason Jordan and Jim Walton, then top executives at CNN met with everyone on staff, including me, in the spring of 2003 and announced that the imminent attack on Iraq would be a chance, to “win back lost ratings,” (to FOX), I cringed and vowed to be an internal sounding board. FOX had eagles turning into jet fighters in their show graphics.

Colin Powell had gotten away with his speech to the UN. No one at CNN seriously questioned the evidence. No guests were invited to be on the air doing so. Of course FOX News didn't. They had virtual pom-poms.

I attended Quaker led peace organization meetings. At one of those, the group was discussing for seven minutes whether to spend ten minutes talking about a topic. No one wanted to hurt anyone else's feelings it seemed. I interrupted and suggested that they had just spent almost as much time as they were trying to approve, trying to approve it. Discussion shifted to what to put on signs at a regular Friday stand-on-the-corner protest at Colony Square, a busy intersection in midtown Atlanta. I left, taking some buttons on the way out, convinced that our peace movement was ineffective and they have not proven me wrong to this day.

In the recent discussions about escalation in Afghanistan, I have again been watching the media. Most have spent their time reporting on how long the President is taking in deciding to send more troops. At first they pitted the President against his top general in the region, who had reportedly asked for 40,000 more troops. Why is he questioning the military? (They work for him.)

They have not been asking whether the numbers being discussed can result in an ultimate goal, nor what that goal is to begin with.

Is the goal Afghanization of their own country? Is it to have a democratically elected government where women have equal rights, or are we throwing the Afghan females under the bus? Has the policy so far been effective and does it portend future success? Has the number of trained Afghani police been increasing in recent months or decreasing? (They have been decreasing, which has been reported, but not in the context of the discussion to escalate.)

Rather than questioning the government about the wisdom of our mission in the first place, the US news media have been attempting to rush the government into escalation. The night of President Obama's speech at west Point, Amanpour and Robertson, who know better, were harkening back to the day when we were successful in Afghanistan, in the initial fall of the Taliban. Neither of those two great reporters, and friends of mine, has ever been able to move safely out of their compound in Kabul, when they are there, and yet they were talking about “success” that we had in 2002 and saying”it IS possible.” I know that they are more skeptical than they were in that broadcast. Why aren't they questioning the escalation further?

As I have in the past, I challenge the media execs to prove me wrong, go ahead and seriously question the Administration, before they all have more blood on their hands.