As Syria heats up, media must remember Iraq lessons
An American
Secretary of State speaks to the world, accusing a dictator of using weapons of
mass destruction, and warning of dire consequences for the dictator’s regime.
If you’re
experiencing déjà vu, you’re not alone.
The
pronouncements this week by Sec. of State John Kerry are eerily reminiscent of
the anti-Saddam assertions of then-Sec. of State Colin Powell. In 2003, Powell
made a dramatic (and ultimately, incorrect) speech at the UN detailing Saddam
Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
This week, Kerry
and Vice President Joe Biden are launching similar accusations against Syria,
this time charging that dictator Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his
own people. Imbedded in those accusations is no small dose of threats and
saber-rattling.
While the
diplomats, generals, and weapons experts debate the veracity of the chemical
weapons charges and desirability of military intervention in Syria, the media
would be well advised to remember their own missteps leading up the Iraq war 10
years ago.
By their own
admission, many in the media shirked their watchdog role in the run up to the
Iraq war. They were largely content with parroting Bush administration
propaganda (lies, some might say). In a mea culpa published in 2004, the New
York Times wrote, “…We have found a number of instances of coverage that was
not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was
controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or
allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more
aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to
emerge. “
Yes, there were
some stories that did question the administration’s propaganda. However,
according to Paul Waldman on CNN.com, “Whenever there's a story that the media
as a whole get wrong, there's always a reporter somewhere who got it right. The
problem was that those voices were so much quieter, pushed so far to the edge
of the national debate.” (CNN.com 3/19/13).
So, here we are
again 10 years later, an administration vilifying a dictator and accusing him
of horrible crimes against his own people. If the media have learned anything
from the pre-Iraq debacle, it is that we must never be only the mouthpiece of
an administration bent on intervention. We journalists need to be asking
questions, and lots of them, seeking independent verification of the claims
against Syria. We must be skeptical.
As a peace
journalist, one devoted to explicitly stating the consequences of war and to giving
peacemakers a voice, we have an even higher responsibility in times like these.
We need to lead a discussion debunking the myth of a “clean, surgical strike”,
and examine at length the number of civilian injuries and deaths that could
occur. Peace journalists must seek out and give a voice to peacemakers and to
those who seek a non-violent response in Syria.
This does not
mean that peace journalists will openly advocate for peace. Instead, it’s our
responsibility to make sure that peaceful alternatives, along with a complete
understanding of all of the ramifications of intervention, are aired. Once we’d
done our job, it’s up to the public to let their leaders know if they believe
military intervention in Syria is indeed the best option.
