Why did the press swallow Massey's stories?
By Ron Harris
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 05 2005
WASHINGTON
Media outlets throughout the world have reported Jimmy Massey's claims of war
crimes, frequently without ever seeking to verify them.
For instance, no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded
with Massey's battalion to ask him or her about his claims.
The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and
television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an
interview with him in October about his new book.
But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press
reporter who was embedded with Massey's unit. Nessman wrote more than 30
stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after
Baghdad had fallen.
Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn't know why the reporters
didn't talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without
seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to
allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.
Some media did seek out comment from the Marine Corps and were told that an
investigation of Massey's accusations had found them baseless. Still, those
news outlets printed Massey's claims without any evidence other than the word
of Massey, who had been released from service because of depression and post
traumatic stress disorder.
"Why would we have run this?"
That Massey wasn't telling the truth should have become obvious the more he
told his stories, said Phillip Dixon, former managing editor of The
Philadelphia Inquirer and currently chairman of the Howard University
Department of Journalism.
Dixon examined dozens of newspaper articles in which Massey told of the
atrocities that Marines allegedly committed in Iraq.
"He couldn't keep his story straight," said Dixon, who has also been an editor
at The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. "First it was a 4-year-old
girl with a bullet hole in her head, then it was a 6-year-old girl."
Editors at some papers look back at the Massey articles and are surprised that
they ran them without examining whether the claims were true or without ever
asking the Marine Corps about them.
"I'm looking at the story and going, 'Why, why would we have run this without
getting another side of the story?'" said Lois Wilson, managing editor of the
Star Gazette in Elmira, N.Y.
David Holwerk, editorial page editor for The Sacramento Bee, said he thought
the newspaper handled its story, a question and answer interview with Massey,
poorly.
"I feel fairly confident that we did not subject this to the rigorous scrutiny
that we should have or to which we would subject it today," he said.
Rex Smith, editor of the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, said he thought the
newspaper's story about Massey could have "benefited from some additional
reporting." But he didn't necessarily see anything particularly at odds with
standard journalism practices.
The paper printed a story in which Massey reportedly told an audience how he
and other Marines killed peaceful demonstrators. There was no response from the
Marine Corps or any other evidence to back Massey's claims.
Smith said that, unfortunately, that is the nature of the newspaper business.
"You could take any day's newspaper and probably pick out a half dozen or more
stories that ought to be subjected to a more rigorous truth test," he said.
"Yes, it would have been much better if we had the other side. But all I'm
saying is that this is unfortunately something that happens every day in our
newspapers and with practically every story on television."
"The truth suffers"
Michael Parks sees it differently. He is the director of the University of
Southern California Annenberg School of Journalism and formerly the editor of
the Los Angeles Times. Parks also reviewed stories written about Massey.
"A reporter's obligation is to check the allegation, to seek comment from the
organization that's accused," said Parks, a Pulitzer Prize winner who covered
the Vietnam War as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. "They can't let
allegations lie on the table, unchecked or unchallenged. When they don't do
that, it's a clear disservice to the reader."
In many cases, journalists covered Massey as he was speaking at public
gatherings. Some reporters said that because he was making public statements,
they didn't feel an obligation to check his claims. Some editors worried they
could be accused of covering up his claims if they didn't report on his speech.
Dixon and Parks disagree.
"We're not stenographers, we're journalists," Dixon said. "What separates
journalism from other forms of writing is that we practice the craft of
verification. By not doing that, that's saying they're abdicating any
responsibility from exercising news judgment."
Parks said the journalist's responsibilities when covering someone who makes
allegations while speaking in a public forum can be different from those when
seeking an interview with an accuser.
"Still, if the person making the allegation has spoken at a public forum, and
the audience has heard it, the obligation of the reporter remains to get the
other side."
Dixon said: "As a journalist, you want to put accurate information before the
public so they can make opinions and decisions based on accurate information.
When something like this happens, harm is done, the truth suffers. " |
