What Media Credibility? (Page 2 of 3)

“Can you explain to us, Mr. Secretary, the serial numbering system that identifies these weapons as provided by the government of Iran?” was a question I would have thought worth asking, considering how embarrassed the media was by not showing any curiosity the last time around. But there was no question.

Instead, the reporter moved on to interview an Iranian government minister and attacked. “Your government is supplying weapons to the insurgents,” the reporter asserted. “Actually,” the Iranian official answered, “if you listened, you heard no concrete evidence. You heard only some third-hand analysis. What we are witnessing here is an attempt to bolster a policy that has already been decided on. Usually, we would expect to first gather information and documentary evidence and then to develop a policy based on that information. But the US already has a policy. Now they are trying to justify it.”

Sound familiar? That same night’s news carried a big story about how Douglas Feith ran an off-the-books intelligence operation that created and cooked intelligence to provide support for a decision—already made—to invade Iraq. It’s deja vu all over again.

So, I would like to make a modest proposal for some standards. And to tell the truth, I’d like to see some big foot organizations get behind an effort to hold the media, and, in turn, the government to these standards.

I want to start with a very simple observation. Five years ago, the Bush Administration misled the nation into war. They did it by cooking intelligence, relying on unscrupulous informants, embracing fraudulent documents, and lying—or at the very least, giving the truth a pretty vigorous spin. A lot of them looked like they were enjoying it at the time. The media passed it all on without pause.

So, first: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION STARTS WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY.

What does this mean? It means we take their word for nothing. Every claim they make must be documented by at least two sources which they disclose publicly.

Second: EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE. ALL SOURCES ARE ON THE RECORD. NO EXCEPTIONS. IF YOU CAN’T SPEAK FOR THE RECORD, IT DOESN’T GET REPORTED.

Last time around, they used information gained by torture; they used unsubstantiated information provided by people with an axe to grind or a stake in the outcome. They used Chalabi, a convicted con man who wanted to be Prime Minister of Iraq when the dust settled. They used anonymous information.

None of that this time. Every source must be named. We have to be able to check these people out—our media has to be able to tell us who said what, we have to verify their credibility before we give credence to anything they say because—first standard—they start with zero.

Third: NO BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. None. If there is a wisp of uncertainty, the story is set aside until it can be more thoroughly and absolutely documented. Because here is what we KNOW about these people who want a war with Iran: they will make things up; they will tell half-truths; they love smoke and mirrors.

Fourth: FULL DOCUMENTATION OR NO STORY. The burden of full disclosure is on the Administration. They have brought this burden on themselves by their past behavior. Full documentation is two unassailable sources and hard evidence. Explain to us how the serial numbering system works. Explain how it was traced to the Iranian government. Explain how the Iranian arms in the hands of insurgents are different from the Russian, Syrian or US arms—explain how the international arms trade (we are the biggest sellers, of course) has such built-in accountability that we know Ahmedinejad okayed the arming of Iraqi insurgents.

Here’s why it is important. If you thought Iraq is as bad as it can get, you’ve been watching too much Walt Disney. Last week, after Gates filed his charges, two incredibly interesting things happened, and they give anyone who is paying attention some insight into the stakes in the Iran invasion scenario. First interesting thing was the speech by Putin, George W.’s buddy. Putin pointed out that the US had overstepped its bounds, and, in doing so had made things much worse in the region. What he didn’t say was that Russia was prepared to take steps to make sure it didn’t happen again, with Iran.