Schelte für Irak-Berichte der US-Medien

--- Michael Massing wirft im New York Review of Books den US-Medien in einem ausführlichen Bericht schweres Versagen beim Durchleuchten der Regierungspropaganda im Vorfeld und während des Irak-Kriegs vor. Vor allem die New York Times und die Washington Post stehen dabei auf der Anklagebank. Erst jetzt würden sie langsam ihre Behauptungen von damals hinterfragen: Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change—when, in short, it might have made a difference? Some maintain that the many analysts who've spoken out since the end of the war were mute before it. But that's not true. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the "intelligence community" was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it. Before the war, for instance, there was a loud debate among intelligence analysts over the information provided to the Pentagon by Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi and defectors linked to him. Yet little of this seeped into the press. Not until September 29, 2003, for instance, did The New York Times get around to informing readers about the controversy over Chalabi and the defectors associated with him. ... The contrast between the press's feistiness since the end of the war and its meekness before it highlights one of the most entrenched and disturbing features of American journalism: its pack mentality.