Armstrong Williams on the American Media coverage of the Hutton report. The "Times" and the "Washington Post" sure didn't make a big deal of it. - From: LindyBill
<font size=4>
.......So you would think that a report that vindicates two of the world's most powerful leaders from charges that they deliberately deceived the world would be a big news item.<font size=3> After all, the story has implications for the war on terrorism, the Wilsonian idealism of carrying democracy into the Middle East, and how we intend to confront the basic problems of dictatorship, tyranny, misery and poverty in that area. It also sheds a harsh light on the world's largest news organization. <font size=4>The Hutton report raised serious questions about whether the BBC embraced an overt political agenda in its war coverage.<font size=3> Those nagging questions led to the forced resignation of two senior executives, an open apology to the Blair administration, and open protests by hundreds of staff members. An investigation into how the BBC gathers information will likely follow. It is possible that several western news outlets could be subject to similar scrutiny regarding their war coverage. <font size=4>For all of these reasons the Hudson report needs to be viewed not just in terms of a British political story, but in terns of a global news story that also has direct impact on the Bush administration.
Yet somehow these rousing points were lost on the majority of the American network news organizations who dedicated almost no coverage to the Hutton report when the findings were first released. The lone exception: Fox news, which instantly beamed the story out to the public. Once that happened, the rest were forced to follow.
So why was the broadcast media gun shy on reporting a story that has serious repercussions for the leadership of the western world, as well as the veracity of the world's largest media corporation? Likely it has something to do with the fact that the BBC set the agenda with regard to war coverage. Their consciously anti-US rhetoric had a ripple effect on the rest of the press and public opinion. The Canadian broadcast corporation followed their lead, as did many of the big US broadcasters. It's not in the interest of any of these organizations to highlight their own sloppy reporting.
While the BBC has been forced to admit and scrutinize their own journalistic shortcomings, it is unlikely that the other major US broadcasters will follow suit, raising disturbing questions about the integrity of several major media outlets in their coverage of the war, and President Bush in general.
<font size=3>
townhall.com. |
