Blitzer on defense: CNN had 'pretty strong' anti-war coverage David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Published: Thursday May 29, 2008



|

Print This Email This From the point of view of a network anchor like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "one of the most provocative allegations" in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is his assertion that "those of us in the news media who cover the president" were "too deferential to the White House" during the run-up to the Iraq war. Blitzer strongly defended CNN's pre-war reporting, pointing out that he had frequently interviewed people like Scott Ritter, who made the case that there was no evidence for Iraqi possession of WMD's. "I think we were pretty strong," Blitzer stated, "but certainly with hindsight, we could have done an even better job. There were a lot of things missing in our coverage. ... I think we asked the tough questions, but we could have done better." Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out to Blitzer that "anti-war voiced had limited access, it seemed, to the airwaves, while administration officials were on every day." "We had a reporter whose sole job ... was to cover the anti-war activists ... almost on a daily basis," Blitzer insisted in response. It appears that CNN's Maria Hinajosa did provide extensive coverage of the anti-war protests in February and March of 2003, along with brief soundbites featuring mostly unidentified demonstrators. However, there were relatively few studio interviews with anti-war figures, and even those did not necessary explore their arguments against the war. Blitzer also played a clip from The Early Show in which two out of three network anchors who were asked about McClellan's criticisms were quick to disagree. "I think that the media did a pretty good job," insisted ABC's Charles Gibson. "I think it's convenient now to blame the media." NBC's Brian Williams claimed that the media were merely reflecting a national desire for war, saying, "People have to remember the post-9/11 era, and how that felt and what the president felt he was empowered to do." Only CBS's Katie Couric was prepared to call it "one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism." She added, "I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work, and from the government itself, to really squash any kind of dissent." CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin expressed much the same sentiments as Couric on Wednesday evening, when she stated on Anderson Cooper 360, "I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings." Blogger Glenn Greenwald remarked tartly of the Early Show exchange, "Perish the thought that journalists should be adversarial to our political officials, challenge what they say or point out when they're lying. Instead, their job is merely to pose polite questions, let political officials say what they want in response, and then go home -- just as Charlie Gibson said." Greenwald also noted that these questions about pre-war news coverage come the wake of the recent revelation that retired officers who provided military analysis for the networks were part of an illegal Pentagon propaganda campaign, a story that the networks themselves have barely acknowledged. This video is from CNN's The Situation Room, broadcast May 29, 2008.

Download video

