Hindsight 20/20: Could the Media Have Prevented the Iraq War?

Recently, The Center For Public Integrity released an interesting bit of reading called, "The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War". The article, as one could imply by the title, is an expose of the many lies and half-truths that were told by the Bush Administration to initiate war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

While these deceptions are maddening in themselves, much heat has been put on the press for repeating these lies, though they may have been unaware of the truth at the time. The media, who are suppose to be the watchdogs of such underhanded politics, could be accused of not doing their homework before printing such statements. The question remains though, did the press not follow through with their job, or are they merely suppose to provide the public with these statements to allow us to make our own judgements? Should the media be instructors, or should they be guides?

As discussed in class, Plato would have us follow our leaders and experts unflinchingly, but what if their words are untrue and left uninterpreted? Should the public take more responsibility for itself, or should the media be dissecting every quote they print? While all of this questioning could become a blame game, I believe it's high-time to think about what we expect from the press and from ourselves as democratic citizens.

No Good Noose

The golf world is currently in an uproar (for how much golf people can be in an uproar) about some very touchy race issues. Kelly Tilghman, a correspondent for the Golf Channel, was suspended recently for a comment she made about lynching in reference to golf superstar, Tiger Woods. In response to the situation, Golfweek Magazine ran a cover of a noose with the tag line, "Caught in a Noose: Tilghman slips up, and Golf Channel can't wriggle free."

While Tilghman's comment was in poor taste, the public showed decidedly more opposition to the Golfweek cover. Many claimed that the issue would have blown over had the specialty magazine not used such an offensive picture. Even PGA Tour commissioner, Tim Finchem, saw the cover as a poor journalistic choice, calling it, "outrageous and irresponsible" and claiming that the picture choice made the magazine look more like a gossip magazine rather than a serious golf journal.

Dave Seanor, the vice president and editor of Golfweek who has been fired over the controversy, was surprised by the public's reaction to the cover. He has openly claimed responsibility for the choice, but has taken it as a learning experience in gauging the public. In any case, the ethics of the issue have not escaped Mr. Seanor. His reaction and attitude seem to reflect the dilemma that many journalists will experience.

"We're a weekly news magazine. The big story of the previous week was Kelly Tilghman, and that's what we chose," Seanor said. "How to illustrate that? It was tough. Do you put Kelly Tilghman out there? But was it so much about her or the uproar?"

One of the major issues facing Golfweek is defending their motivation: are they merely seeking to sell more magazines, or are they truly interested in bringing up a topic that has so long been avoided in the golf world? Should something as sensitive as race be splashed in such an upfront way on the cover of a magazine, or does the issue need to addressed less directly? These are the questions that journalists, as well as the golf community, will need to answer very soon.

They're Just Trying To Pay the Mortgage

Those of us going into the world of journalism after college have high hopes that we will become the ordained "truth tellers" for our society. Our starry-eyed ambitions lead us to believe that we will go on to expose the lies of evil politicians, uncover the realities of human suffering and fight for the average American in their pursuit to obtain knowledge about the world around them.

Sadly though, a person does have to make a living . . .

Anybody who hasn't been locked in Azkaban the last few years knows that the media these days have been erring more and more on the side of entertainment rather than hardcore news stories. We hear more and more with each passing day the situation of the unfortunate Spears girls, but it is unlikely that many would be able to tell you about any current news about the war in Iraq. I'm pleased to tell you that Atonement has seven Golden Globe nominations, but please don't ask me about any updates about the state of Pakistan since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Even if a journalist wants to get down to the nitty gritty when it comes to news, they're street smart enough to know what the people really want to know (you can tell what by which links you most likely wanted to click through this last paragraph); but the question still lingers: what does the public need to know?

In a 2006 article for MarketWatch.com, Thomas Kostigen wrote about ten news stories that had been given shockingly low coverage in America's news outlets. These stories ranged from Halliburton disclosing nuclear information to Iraq, to the rising effects of global warming, to the unveiling of the many corruptions of the Bush Administration. The article was taken from information that was released by the Sonoma State University research group Project Censored that tracks prevalent stories in the news . . . and those that are noticeably left out.

The question that all of this ultimately brings up is, what is the journalist's responsibility to the public? Is their true duty to give the people what they want, or what they need to know? While the cry of "freedom of the press!" rings in one's ears, the essential need of the public to be informed is what makes them "free". Only when armed with the necessary information can Americans truly carry out their democratic responsibility. Without the ethical consideration of journalists, this information could go forgotten and unnoticed.