From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Pundit Watch #1
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:26:07 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

=o= The attached is a Pundit Watch, an examination of the news
media's coverage of the Gulf War, assembled by Peter Dykstra of
Greenpeace.  I distributed these during the war and am reposting
them now so that alt.news-media readers can have them.

=o= One of the last Pundit Watches was published in _The_
_Progressive_, after which Dykstra wrote it as a column in
that magazine.  Back issues of _The_Progressive_ (from last
year) can be found at your local library, one hopes.
    <_Jym_>

Via Environet:
=================================================================
January 29, 1991


                   GREENPEACE PUNDIT WATCH #1

PUNDIT WATCH, First in a Series of Reports on News Coverage of the
Persian Gulf War.  For more information: Greenpeace Media, 
202-462-1177.  (Also available on PeaceNet, EcoNet, and EnviroNet
Computer Systems).

##################  
"A quarter-ton of concentrated hatred," declared CNN's Richard 
Blystone as a lone SCUD hit Tel Aviv Tuesday. Due to wartime 
restrictions, the Pentagon offered no comment on the "hatred" 
content of thousands of tons of Allied ordnance dropped on Iraq.  
In the first week of warfare, the strengths and weaknesses of the
U.S. media were more in display than the war itself.  We saw the
press unskeptically relaying Pentagon reports of "decimation" of
the Iraqi military.  But by week's end, a deep resentment of
wartime censorship emerged among mainstream journalists. 
  We saw the extraordinary technical prowess of the media and the
courage of behind-the-lines reporters emerge as their own news
stories.  We saw American viewers turn into voyeurs as each
obsolete missile was lobbed into Saudi Arabia or Israel -- while
night after night the bombing of Baghdad, some of the most lethal
bombing in history, slipped into the background. 
  Welcome to Pundit Watch.  In this weekly report, we'll offer 
analysis of U.S. media coverage of the Persian Gulf War.   This 
first issue focuses on the rise to stardom of the Patriot missile
and the pressing issues of war censorship -- as formally imposed by
the U.S., Iraqi, and Israeli military, and the more insidious self-
censorship imposed by news organizations.    In the coming weeks,
we'll analyze trends and fads in war  reporting; unreported stories
of the war and its opposition; we'll monitor the diversity -- or
lack -- of opinion included on public affairs shows.  But first, a
list of dates to remember:    
PREDICTED DATES OF THE WAR'S END, The McLaughlin Group, taped Jan.
18:  Pat Buchanan, Jan. 30 ("No more than two weeks from day
one.");  Fred Barnes, Jan. 29 ("Eleven days from now"); Jack 
Germond, Feb. 6 ("I suspect it's gonna take a little longer than
that.  Three weeks.");  Morton Kondracke, Jan. 31 ("Thirteen 
days.").  And John McLaughlin, Feb. 6 ("three weeks from day one.") 
The testosterone count dropped considerably by Jan. 25's show, with
Buchanan predicting "less than a month;" Barnes, "maybe six weeks;"
Germond, "At least six weeks and probably longer;" Kondracke,
"three weeks;" and McLaughlin, "Sometime between April 1 and June
1."  Mark your calendars.  <PD> 


################################################  
PATRIOTS: THE LAST REFUGE FOR DEFENSE SPENDING? 
################################################   

Anointed as the war's first hero, the Patriot missile is basking in
its fifteen minutes of fame.  "Patriot Hailed as Making a
Difference" cried The Washington Times (1/21).  "War Hero Status
Possible for the Computer Chip" said a New York Times headline. 
CBS's "48 Hours" visited the US training base for soldiers who
repair and guard the missile (it fires automatically), and USA
Today (1/22) reported on heightened morale at the Andover, MA Donut
Master shop near Raytheon's Patriot assembly plant.  The business
section (1/22) at Al Neuharth's pet paper gave the missile a
centerfold description:  "Length: 17 feet, 5 inches; three inches
longer than a Cadillac Sedan de Ville."  This week so much
moralizing surrounded the missile that almost got scratched by the
Pentagon that the Patriot became the Little Missile that Could.   
 How did this missile become a media darling?  Mid-week's  single-
minded media focus on the Patriot may have taken place in part
because control on reporters' conduct simply left no other stories
within reach. The Washington Post (1/22) quoted an American
reporter as saying "The whole structure is inherently manipulative. 
We have no independent access.  Technically, I can be thrown out of
this country for talking to an American serviceman and I find that
ludicrous."  Between military censorship and daily deadline
pressure, journalists in Saudi Arabia needed a story.  Voila - one
exploded right above reporters' heads and in camera range.      War
zone journalists may have felt some personal reason to cheer for
the Patriot.  TV correspondents seemed at times terrified at the
prospect of incoming SCUD's.  On the morning of January 22, CNN's
Charles Jaco dove for his gas mask during a live shot from Saudi
Arabia.  Another unmasked reporter finished his report.  It isn't
hard to salivate over a anti-missile missile that you think may
have just saved your life.  
  But only successful Patriots have been televised.  An AP story
(1/21) quoted several sources in northern Saudi Arabia who
witnessed Patriots being fired, far away from probing TV cameras or
reporters.  As Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, (USN Ret.) of the
Center for Defense Information, told the New York Times (1/21) "all
the news is coming through a filter.  We see the hits but not the
misses.  Management of the news has put an emphasis on the success
of our new weapons."  Carroll's point was underscored later in the
week, as SCUD's apparently eluded Patriots and landed in Riyadh and
Israel.  The Patriot hype dwindled. 
  As the star of the Patriot rose, so did the perceived threat of
the Sixties-era, Soviet-made SCUD.  While described as
"militarily insignificant" by the Pentagon, the SCUD became a major
strategic player in TV's war drama. Lee Feinstein of the Arms
Control Association, branded the Scud as "inaccurate with a small
payload -- the longer the flight, the lighter the payload." General
Norman Schwarzkopf, told the BBC (as reported in the 1/24
Washington Post) that he "would be more afraid of standing out in
a lightning storm in southern Georgia than I would standing out in
the streets of Riyadh when the Scuds are coming down."    
Raytheon`s stock, both literally and figuratively, soared. At the
New York Stock Exchange on January 21 Raytheon stock was up $4.50,
to close at $74.625.  That day, ABC's Sam Donaldson had jokingly
exhorted viewers to "Buy Raytheon." 
  On the same day, the Army stepped up production of the Patriot to
re-arm troops in the Gulf.  (It is interesting to note that the
military only deployed about 60 Patriot systems in the Gulf region. 
According to a Raytheon press release, the US military is in line
to receive 869 more missiles -- but not until January of 1993, and
at a cost of $1.1 million each.) 
   Defense contractors are smiling because the Patriot, with the
press as a guidance system, has scored another direct hit -- a few
days' reported success by a single missile system seems to have
atoned for decades of corruption and mismanagement in
defense contracting.  Members of Congress, whose best information
sources are the same censored news stories we've all seen, have
used the Patriot as a launching pad to revive the SDI and other
staggeringly expensive high-tech systems.  Senate Armed Services
Chair Sam Nunn told CNN last Sunday, "I think every now and then we
ought to praise our defense industry out there.  They get a lot of
knocks, but they've developed a tremendous amount of technology
that's saving precious American lives."  Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) was
paraphrased by the LA Times (1/21) as saying "that televised
display of 'smart' weapons at work would overcome objections from
critics that they were too high-priced and
complicated."  The lesson in this is clear:  Should the Patriot
become the rallying cry for another defense spending spree, its
moments of fame will be the costliest fifteen minutes in TV
history. <JW> 

#########################  
EVERYBODY OUT OF THE POOL  
######################### 

Nobody likes bad press, least of all the Pentagon, but few have so
much power to control the press. Still smarting from its lesson in
Vietnam when there still was such as thing as an adversarial press,
the Pentagon turned its sights on the media.  Honing its censorship
techniques in Grenada and Panama, the Pentagon has presented the
American public with an antiseptic, bloodless war.   
  In Panama, the press attended with their "security reviewers" and
gave us such gritty journalism as the TV piece on the most 
requested song that the grunts blasted at Noriega in Panama's 
Vatican compound: Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive."  For the next
several months, no one bothered to go back in afterwards 
and get the real story.  Malpractice during the "surgical"
strikes actually left hundreds of civilians dead. 
  The new Pentagon press regulations that were handed down on 
January 7 require that battlefield dispatches and photography 
clear military "security review," an anachronism from the 
Korean War.  Reporters can only travel in predesignated pools,
accompanied by a military escort at all times. 
  The Pentagon claims that detailed news coverage of everything
from troop movements to weather conditions can aid the enemy, but
critics dismiss the security argument as ludicrous. 
  "The press has never put American servicemen at risk," said
Newsday's Sydney Schanberg, an outspoken criticism of war 
censorship.  "It's about a political decision to keep the public
from having a front row seat in this war." 
  Even Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams can only recall that no
more than five or six of more than 2,000 correspondents had their
credentials lifted during the 13-year Vietnam War. 
  "There are more breaches of security by military people than
there ever will be by press," Schanberg added. 
  The multi-tiered "security review" is part media enmity, part
spin control. Press reports often have to clear "public affairs" 
officers both here and in the Gulf, causing delays long enough to
either kill a story completely or give the Pentagon first shot at
breaking the news at their daily briefings. 
  "Security reviewers" in the Gulf helped the Pentagon scoop pool
coverage of initial F-117A stealth fighter bomb runs by sending 
them to their death in the desert--the Nevada desert that is--for
a secondary review by the U.S. stealth base. (Philadelphia Inquirer
1/25) 
  In another instance,  "a military censor wanted to change the 
word 'giddy' to 'proud' in a (Detroit Free Press) story
describing some pilots.  That has nothing to do with national
security.  That's spin control," said Jane Kirtley of the Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press (USA TODAY, 1/25). 
  The mainstream press have finally begun to chafe at Pentagon 
restrictions.  Tensions have risen noticeably at Pentagon 
briefings. However, before the war even began, one groups of
journalists expressed the outrage that the major media has only
recently articulated.  
  Several small news organizations in filed suit in U.S. District 
Court in New York City two weeks ago, challenging the Pentagon's
rules.  But the Nation and Mother Jones magazines,  Schanberg and
E.L. Doctorow and their nine co-plaintiffs drew no support -- and
very little attention -- from major national news organizations.  
 When asked why they didn't sign on to the suit NBC said they had
joined with the other major networks in sending a letter asking the
Pentagon to ease press restrictions.  They said they would continue
to work behind the scenes to ease censorship.    
  So far the spin control seems to be working.  To be sure,
Pentagon censorship played a role in narrowing the range of stories
to a very favorable few:  The overhyped Scud/Patriot drama, the
clearly abused US POW's, the heroic Saudi pilot, and the massive
oil spill.  If the effort were designed to obscure the destruction
wrought by over 22,000 allied air sorties beyond exaggerated
reports of their success, it certainly succeeded.     The lack of
access to hard information and their unwillingness to aggressively
challenge the rosy rhetoric converted the press into a conduit for
blatant misinformation. For TV newsmen, this war's first night was
clearly the best -- the Iraqi elite guard was "decimated," and
sorties were 80% successful. 
Number-crunching on the sorties played out throughout the week.
Nightline quoted General Schwarzkopf as saying on 1/18 that the
numbers meant that "more than 80 percent of all those sorties have
successfully engaged their targets."  But by week's end, it was
revealed that the "sorties" included all refueling and 
reconnaissance flights -- about half the total -- and that the 
"successful" engagements represented planes that had dropped their
payload, but not necessarily hit their targets.   
  The euphoria of the opening-night press reports added to the
historic tendency for Americans to jump on the war wagon early and
often.  US Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) was widely quoted as  predicting
the war's end in "two days."  Col. David Hackworth (USA Ret.),
blustering for Newsweek from Saudi Arabia, declared that it would
be a "six-minute war." A few nights later on the CNN Larry King
Show, Hackworth re-set his victory clock to "eleven days."  His
1/28 Newsweek story had Iraqi troops "throwing down their guns and
running."   
   So alarmingly rosy was the ringside rhetoric that even the White
House tried to put on the brakes.  On Thursday, Marlin Fitzwater
prepared Americans for a long war, with plenty of American tragedy. 
With George Bush's approval rating at a record high, the press
helped put the war effort on a pedestal so high that a fall was
certain.  The White House had apparently come to fear that
simmering resentment on military censorship might actually unleash
some of the dormant ideals of US journalism.      
   But the press has yet to confront its own self-censorship.  War
opponents have largely been written off, and with little
distinction made between military family members and the handful of
smash-the-state anarchists.  The universal message in the too-
sparse coverage of war opposition is that any talk of peace is in
bad taste until Saddam Hussein's ass is fully kicked.  Just as the
White House and Pentagon fear the press, the press has come to fear
the public, whose current pro-Bush demographics has chilled
reasonable reporting on the growing number of war
dissenters.  
   It is both easy and understandable that the networks place some
reliance on men with military backgrounds to discuss military 
tactics and weaponry.  But the near-total dominance in network 
situation rooms by men who have made a living in the industry of
war has no place in journalism.  The press would do well to accord
substantially more credence and respect for those of us who simply
do not accept war.  This quote from a previous war suggests that
the phenomenon is not new: 
 "Naturally the common people don't want war ... but after all it
is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along ... All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."    Hermann
Goering, 1936                 <AD> 

##############  

  THREE WISE MEN:  Appearing among the mainstream pundits this week
were a triad of convicted felons:  Gen. Richard Secord (USAF,
Ret.); providing air-war expertise for CNN; Adm. John Poindexter
(USN, Ret.), interviewed 1/22 by USA TODAY; and Lt. Col. Oliver L.
North (USMC, Ret.), who wrote a 1/23 Wall St. Journal Op-Ed that
parlayed the absence of hard information on the war into a plea for
more high-tech weaponry.  None of the three made mention of TOW
missiles' strategic value in Gulf.   SUPER QUOTES:  "Journalists
often make analogies in headlines between football and war.  But
not in this war."  John Madden's CBS Super Bowl Preview, 1/26.  
"Patriots vs. Scuds:  Iraqi Touchdown is Averted."  One of the many
such headlines in this war, New York Times, 1/27.
  JUST A THOUGHT:  If peace demonstrations are routinely
described as "reminiscent of the Sixties," then why can't we say
that about U.S. carpet bombing raids?  <PD> 

######################################################### 
NEXT WEEK: Oil Spills/Oil Profits; US Coverage of Peace Activists
#########################################################

Written by Andrew Davis, Jeanne Whalen, and Peter Dykstra

                              ####