No Questions Asked

A critical look at news coverage in the U.S. after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks

By Lisa Finnegan

�Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.� Voltaire

Without a strong media, democracy is doomed. The Fourth Estate's most important job is to present unbiased, accurate information about issues and policy to the public. Without public scrutiny administrations can become a breeding ground for bad and dangerous ideas.

In recent years, for several reasons � including the brilliant psychological manipulation of a nation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks � the American media has allowed administration officials to present information to the public without having to worry much about answering uncomfortable questions or having their policy deconstructed for public consumption. Relevant information is buried deep inside newspapers, gaping holes can be found in stories and obvious questions remain unasked.

In the midst of the chaotic 9/11 hijackings and in the years that followed the first foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil the press forgot that its role is to observe what happens, ask difficult questions and report what it sees and hears. Instead journalists minimized alternative viewpoints, amplified the administration's perspective and presented half-truths that confused the American public.

I want to make it clear that the central point of this book is that the media did not do its job and report the news fairly, completely and accurately � not that the press was insufficiently critical of the Bush administration. My goal was to write a facts-based book (as opposed to all the un-footnoted, opinion books that have been published) that critically examines the media's coverage of events since the 9/11 attacks. I use press reports to make my argument and some would say that this proves the American media is doing its job. My point is that these media reports were (and continue to be) too little, too late � questions went unasked and unanswered for years, major stories are still ignored or misrepresented and many important questions remain unexplored (see chapter 1). Articles that contained important information and alternative viewpoints were (and are) buried in back pages of newspapers and ignored in broadcasts.

The American media's coverage of the "Downing Street Memo" is a case in point. The American media waited five weeks to report that President Bush and his ally Tony Blair had decided on regime change in Iraq in April 2002 and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" decision. The secret memo also said, "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." This is big news � front page news. Yet when the American media did cover the story, it was difficult to find. The Washington Post, for example, ran an article on page A13.

Rather than disseminate unbiased information, the media helped spread misinformation and what appears to be falsehoods. A poll survey released in October 2003 revealed that more than half of Americans believe these dangerous mistruths.1 The poll was conducted from January through September 2003.

• Sixty-nine percent said they believed Iraq played an important role in Sept. 11, with 13 percent claiming they had seen clear evidence of such a link.
• Fifty-two percent said they believed a link had been found between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
• Twenty-two percent said the U.S. found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, with 20 percent saying they believed biological and chemical weapons were used against U.S. troops.

Most alarming of all, despite protests that brought unprecedented numbers to the streets in cities across the globe, the majority of those polled believed the U.S. had worldwide support for the invasion of Iraq.

Where did Americans get this false information? They got it from the media. The same study revealed that the more an individual watched commercial television news in the U.S., the more likely he was to be wrong about the facts surrounding the Iraq war and its aftermath. The study also found that the more misperceptions a person held, the more likely he or she was to support the war and the more he or she relied on television news for information about the war.2 In other words, it is a vicious circle perpetuated by the media. Overall, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at least one of the three misperceptions mentioned above.

It wasn't until March 2005 that Americans began to have doubts about whether ridding the world of Hussein was worth it. A Washington Post/ABC News poll, revealed that nearly three-quarters of those surveyed now say the U.S. casualty rate in Iraq is unacceptable; two-thirds believed the U.S. military is bogged down; 60 percent said the war was not worth fighting.

American journalists claim they are not responsible for public policy or public support or rejection of a policy. The fact is they help determine how a policy is perceived by the public and are � whether they like it or not � part of the political process.

Ultimately, the question comes down to this: What is a journalist's job? Is it to provide a voice � and amplify the voice unchallenged � for an administration and its policy? To question everything an administration says and does? To read reports, analyze information, question administration officials and educate the public? To act as the public's watchdog? To provide commentary that enhances dialogue? To simply report what everybody says and leave it at that?

The answer is complicated. I believe a journalist should certainly give a voice to the president and tell the public what he (and perhaps someday she) believes politically and personally. But responsibility should not stop there. A journalist needs to think about what the president's agenda means to the nation (and to the reporter's specific audience), how the president's personal beliefs drive his agenda and what impact that may have on the public. A reporter must consider whether the president and his staff are telling the truth and what reasons they might have to lie. He or she must listen, analyze, question officials, question outside sources, consider all the information, call officials back if necessary and write a balanced story that presents all sides as fairly and accurately as possible.

Most importantly, a journalist must find a way to tell the public that an official is lying or that the facts are being skewed. This is tricky and most American journalists would claim that calling a politician a liar is exhibiting bias. In the process of writing this book I was told several times that I was naïve � that journalists can only report what is said because doing otherwise is too difficult (it is awkward to ask anyone difficult questions or to call someone a liar to their face, even if it is done in the nicest way). I was told that pointing out inaccuracies in politicians' statements is unprofessional because in doing so a reporter is passing judgment and slanting the news. (I also found out a lot of journalists and journalism professors are extremely defensive about the state of the American media, but that's another issue).

It is difficult to ask high-level officials (or anyone) uncomfortable questions, but it is a journalist's job. And skeptical examination of information presented by officials is not biased reporting, but balanced reporting. When it appears an official has presented false information, a journalist has the responsibility to call the official, explain the conflict and ask for a clarification. If the official denies that his or her original statement or presentation of an issue is incorrect, a journalist should present the officials' version of the facts, the evidence to the contrary and the official's explanation about how his interpretation is correct. An outside source can also be included. If necessary, and to ensure the journalist is not exhibiting bias, the official can be called again and given a chance to respond once this outside source has been consulted. If an official refuses to take the call, this should be noted in the article. This is not exhibiting bias; it is basic reporting.

If a president says the sky is falling, it should certainly lead the story. But the reporter should also look up, point out the sky seems fine and ask why the president thinks the sky is falling. A second and third opinion about the feasibility of the sky falling would also be a good idea. Editors and journalism professors used to tell young reporters �if your mother says she loves you, check it out.� That seems to have changed to �your mother-in-law says she loves you, write it up.�

There is another question to be pondered: What happened to the free press in the U.S.? Again, this is not an easy question to answer. Corporate ownership has played a role as has a shrinking market share and a fierce fight for an audience. But since Sept. 11, 2001 other factors have emerged. The beacon of American journalism has become fear, personal attacks on those who present alternative viewpoints, editors who allow themselves to be bullied by administration officials and a general disregard for hard-charging journalism that includes the pursuit of difficult truths.

The recent Newsweek controversy is a perfect example. Newsweek printed a brief item in its May 9, 2005 issue that mentioned allegations by an anonymous U.S. official who said that the Koran had been desecrated as part of interrogation techniques designed to crack �detainees� in Guantánamo Bay. One allegation was that pages of the Koran had been flushed down the toilet. A few days after the story appeared (and went relatively unnoticed) riots broke out in Afghanistan. The Bush administration immediately blamed Newsweek for the unrest and for the deaths that occurred.

Donald Rumsfeld said about the Newsweek story: �People need to be careful what they say, just as people need to be careful what they do.� White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, �The report had real consequences. People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged. There are some who are opposed to the United States and what we stand for who have sought to exploit this allegation. It will take work to undo what can be undone.�3 He added: �we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region�   by �explaining what happened and why they got it wrong.�

Condoleezza Rice joined in the criticism: �I do think it's done a lot of harm. Of course, 16 people died but it's also done a lot of harm to America's efforts� show how tolerant it is of the Muslim religion. �The sad thing was that there was a lot of anger that got stirred by a story that was not very well founded,� she said.

Under pressure, Newsweek apologized and said its story was flawed. Its source also appears to have crumbled under the pressure and recanted the story. Newsweek was wrong to rely on anonymous sources. However, news reports that followed criticized Newsweek, largely without pointing out the facts.

What are the facts?

• There have been several reports of American military members desecrating the Koran during interrogations, including from other American news organizations, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross and former Guantánamo Bay prisoners. There are also numerous reports of attempts to crack prisoners by preying on their religious beliefs. For example, there were several reports about �female interrogators flaunting their sexuality to humiliate devout Muslims, including smearing red fluid said to be menstrual blood on prisoners.�4 In fact, the New York Times reported weeks after the Newsweek story ran that �an American military inquiry found five cases in which the Koran had been mishandled by interrogators and guards at Guantánamo.�5 The administration said the incidents were accidents. According to the Pentagon, a guard's urine �splashed' a prisoner and his Koran, guards in a water balloon fight hit two prisoners and got their Korans wet and a guard kicked a prisoner's Koran. Officials said a two-word obscenity was found in a Koran but it was unclear whether guards or a prisoner wrote it.
• The riots in Afghanistan were unrelated to the Newsweek report. The top member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, General Richard Myers, explained: �It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan.  He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.�6
• Colin Powell used a single source to justify much of his case for war in Iraq (anyone remember Curveball?). He wasn't asked, as McClellan asked of Newsweek, �to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.� Or to the reputation of the U.S. worldwide.

Rather than highlight these facts the media largely allowed the administration to make its case that Newsweek was part of the unpatriotic media establishment and that its carelessness inflamed anti-American sentiments abroad and put soldiers' lives at risk. The media enabled the administration to disregard all the potential reasons anti-American sentiment may be growing abroad � such as abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and complaints by civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Newsweek's editors crumbled, issued an apology and accepted responsibility for the unrest in Afghanistan even after Meyers said the protests were unrelated to its article. Editor Mark Whitaker said, �whatever facts we got wrong, we apologize for. I've expressed regret for the loss of life and the violence that put American troops in harm's way. I'm getting a lot of angry e-mail about that, and I understand it.�7 Newsweek was being blamed for inciting riots in news stories weeks after Meyers told reporters that the protests in Afghanistan were caused by anger over the political situation there.8

On June 4, 2005 CNN wrote: �The investigation [that revealed that the Koran was mishandled] was prompted after a Newsweek article citing unnamed sources made such a claim � prompting violent protests in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world that left more than a dozen people dead.�9

After the military released its report there were worldwide protests over the desecration of the Koran.The New York Times wrote: �emotions have boiled over in the Muslim world ever since the allegations of desecration spread through a brief article in Newsweek . The magazine retracted the desecration report last week, but an American military inquiry found five cases in which the Koran had been mishandled by interrogators and guards at Guantánamo.�10

Did American press corps miss Meyers' statement that the Newsweek article had nothing to do with the emotions boiling over in the Muslim world?

What are Americans likely to believe? That the Newsweek article sparked the violence and protests in Afghanistan and that the American media was harming the administration's attempts to spread freedom and democracy. Why? Because administration officials and the media repeatedly told them that this was so. Even Newsweek lifted the burden of explanation from the administration and allowed the focus to shift away from the potential abuse in American prisons abroad.

The White House further blamed the media for blowing the situation out of proportion and causing violence in a statement it released after its own investigation revealed wrongdoing. Shouldn't the administration have to take some responsibility for the issues it uncovered in its own investigation?

The Newsweek example illustrates how the administration has shaped the American public's perception of events through the media. Years after the administration used the media to spread its point of view after the 9/11 attacks, the circle of misinformation continues and major issues are buried under more minor ones. For example, what kind of structure do they have in place at Guantánamo Bay that makes it okay for guards to have water balloon fights while on duty? It is another hint that the lack of oversight that resulted in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse is more widespread than acknowledged by the Pentagon.

Another disturbing industry trend was revealed in the Newsweek "scandal" � Newsweek submits stories to government officials for approval prior to running them in the magazine. The magazine's assistant managing editor Evan Thomas said, "Newsweek national security correspondent John Barry, realizing the sensitivity of the story, provided a draft of the Newsweek 'Periscope' item to a senior Defense official, asking, 'Is this accurate or not?'" Newsweek's editor-in-chief Richard M. Smith said, "One of the frustrating aspects of our initial inquiry is that we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story�.We sought comment from one military spokesman (he declined) and provided the entire story to a senior Defense Department official, who disputed one assertion (which we changed) and said nothing about the charge of abusing the Quran."11

I may be antediluvian, but when I began reporting, editors did not allow people outside the newsroom to review a story before it appeared in print. It was a highly guarded measure to protect content from overanxious advertisers and officials who could exert pressure to tone down a story or to kill it altogether. That does not mean accuracy was compromised; journalists confirmed specific news items or read back quotes for confirmation without revealing the content of the entire story. Presenting stories for official review now appears to be standard practice. Daniel Okrent, The New York Times' public editor praised Newsweek for doing so, as did the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz.

Again, what happened to the free press in the U.S.?

According to Christiane Amanpour, international correspondent for CNN the press was �intimidated� by the Bush administration and Fox News.

�I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.�12

Rather than bristling at the accusation, Fox News' Irena Briganti countered: �Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.�13

Although it is still unclear how an entire press corps could be so easily bullied, Briganti's retort provides a hint. It suggests that an effective psychological campaign was launched on the American public and the media after the Sept. 11 attacks. The media, like the rest of the world, was, as Bush so simply put it, �either with us or � with the terrorists.� Given the choice, and its sudden popularity after attacks, the press decided it was with the president.

The line was drawn in the sand early and members of the media chose to fall in step. An emotional veteran newsman Dan Rather wept with talk show host David Letterman a few days after the Sept. 11 attacks and pledged: �George Bush is the president...Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.�14

Reporters cozzied up with soldiers during the War on Iraq and seemed to enjoy saying things like �of course I can't say much because of national security,� and �I am not allowed to discuss what happened here,� much to the dismay of some old-time newsmen such as Walter Cronkite. Cronkite said he didn't much like the idea of the embedded reporters and thought the implications of the phrase [in]bed should make any journalist squeamish. (See chapter 6).

Many, including members of the media itself, say the press has failed to do its job. Very few news reports filled in the basic blanks - the who, what, where, when and whys - about U.S. foreign policy, the USA PATRIOT Act, the administration's insistence on the need for secrecy and for more power, the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the necessity of sending our soldiers to topple another country's dictator and send a tenuous region into dangerous imbalance. Very few reports are filling in those blanks now.

According to John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of a book on censorship in the Gulf War, the Sept. 11 attacks had a depressing impact on the free press in the United States. �There isn't even the spirit any more that was in Vietnam, of skepticism, and the sense that the patriotic thing to do is to tell the American people the truth and to try to be impartial and not to be the cat's paw of the government. But when I say this on TV the reaction is overwhelming, there is tremendous hostility to the free press in this country.�15

The height of patriotism is asking the difficult questions and searching for answers.

I spent 15 years working as a print journalist and I know it is a difficult job. Confrontations are always uncomfortable, even for reporters. Sources lie for personal reasons. Politicians use reporters to gain favor with their constituents. When reporters become contrary or write a story politicians don't like, they shut them out and make their jobs even more difficult. Investigations can lead reporters to dusty record rooms where they spend days reading boring documents � sometimes for nothing. Readers and viewers complain bitterly if they don't like a story, but rarely compliment those they like. Journalism is not a glamorous job. But it is an important one and that's why I wrote this book. I believe in the profession. I believe journalists can and should make a difference. When they don't, they deserve to be held accountable.

In the years that followed the 9/11 attacks members of the American media made several egregious errors that will have long-term negative consequences for the both the public and the journalism profession. For example, members of the media decided to fight an administration decision to minimize access to information two years after former Attorney General John Ashcroft shifted the policy restricting access to information available under the Freedom of Information Act. It is positive they decided to fight for access, but it took too long � years of hard-fought battles for public access to information were reversed in those years. Those battles will have to be fought all over again. (See chapter 1 for more information.)

Journalists discovered that portions of the much-maligned PATRIOT Act II were made into law after it landed on the president's desk for his signature. The president signed the bill the Saturday the Pentagon announced that Saddam Hussein was pulled from a spider hole in Iraq. Again, it is positive that journalists told the public that it happened, but considering the public's ardent protests against the Patriot II, journalists should have been more diligent about working their sources for information that it was about to become law. Editors should have loudly protested the manner in which major changes to the FBI's powers were stealthily made law despite the fact that most Americans were against it. (See chapter 4 for information.)

I am not excusing members of Congress who let the provisions that expanded the Patriot Act slip past them, unnoticed, in an appropriations bill. They deserve to be held accountable by their constituents. But to be held accountable, their constituents need to know it happened. And that is where the media has failed.

I note these kinds of delays in the book because it is important to remember that news should be reported, analyzed and questioned when it happens, not weeks, months or years later. In time, and with a lot of pressure from the public, journalists did begin to examine their mistakes. But even then, they failed to understand the seriousness of their errors or to explain how these errors would be avoided in the future. (See chapter 5)

Finally, this book focuses on the media, but that does not mean I believe journalists are the sole guardians of truth and democracy. Reporters are one of several players in the checks and balances system in the U.S. The public has a responsibility to keep an eye on its government. The drafters of the Constitution made it clear that without the public monitoring its government, the system would fail. Members of Congress should also be held accountable for legislation they pass without vigorous debate and for any breeches to the checks and balances. It is their job to ensure government remains open and honest. They also need to pay closer attention (or their staffers do) to legislation they pass. Somebody, besides lobbyists, needs to read the legislation that is passing through the halls of Congress.

And all Americans are responsible for the direction the country has taken and the media coverage that has been permitted to thrive.

I spent more than a year working on No Questions Asked. I tried hard to confirm all the information in the book. If you find an error, please send an e-mail to: errors@noquestionsasked.org and I will check the facts and correct all mistakes as soon as possible.

If you want to contact me about another matter, send an e-mail to writer@noquestionsasked.org .

Thanks for your interest and I hope you enjoy the book.

Go back to the main page Go to the top of the page

Footnotes

1- The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, �Misperceptions, the Media and the War in Iraq,� Pg. 3. Online, (Last accessed April 4, 2004).

2- The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, �Misperceptions, the Media and the War in Iraq,� Pg. 16. Online,(Last accessed April 4, 2004).

3- AP, �Newsweek Urged to do More to Repair Damage,� May 17, 2005. Back to the text

4- John Freeman, �Nightmare of Guantanamo....U.S. prison camp in Cuba has become legal black hole, reporter says, The Denver Post, Jan. 9, 2005; also ran in the Hartford Courant, Jan. 16, 2005. (�They were punched, slapped, denied sleep, had seen other prisoners sexually humiliated, hooded and forced to watch copies of the Koran being flushed down toilets.�) Jimmy Burns, �Four Britons Held At Guantanamo Sue US Government,� Financial Times, Oct. 28, 2004. (�In August Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Rasul and Mr. Iqbal issued a 115-page dossier accusing the US of abuse, including allegations that they were beaten and had their Korans thrown into toilets.�) Amnesty International, United States Of America: Human Dignity Denied; Torture And Accountability In The �War On Terror', Oct. 27, 2004. (�The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has cited reports by Iraqis that during house searches by Coalition forces in Iraq, the conduct of soldiers has been "considered humiliating, for example, when they send women outside the house in their nightgowns, or when they show disrespect for the Koran, throwing it on the floor or tearing it apart."(108) Local civilians have made similar complaints of cultural disrespect by US forces in Afghanistan�According to the military, the ICRC had �a serious concern with the treatment of the Koran' by military guards in Guantánamo, particularly in August 2003. Twenty detainees had told the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that they had been forcibly shaved as punishment for �disturbances' that followed alleged disrespect towards the Koran. Major General Miller denied that the Koran had been deliberately disrespected or that anyone had been shaved as punishment.(118)�) Carol D. Leonnig, �Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before,� Washington Post, May 18, 2005. Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, �Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantánamo Bay,� New York Times, May 1, 2005.

5- Salman Masood, �Reports of Mishandling Koran Bring Protest Worldwide,� New York Times, May 28, 2005.

6- Al Pessin, �Pentagon: No Abuse of Koran, Afghan Protests Unrelated,� Voice of America, May 12, 2005.

8- CNN, �Karzai Demands Justice Over Abuse Charge,� May 23, 2005 (�The Protests were sparked in part by Newsweek report quoting a U.S. official as saying a U.S. investigation had found that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detainee facility had defiled the Quran.�

10- Salman Masood, �Reports of Mishandling Koran Bring Protest Worldwide,� New York Times, May 28, 2005.

11- "Lessons From Newsweek's Retraction," Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, News Advisory, June 1, 2005.

12- Peter Johnson, �Media Mix: Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship.� USA TODAY Sept. 15, 2003. (Last accessed April 1, 2004).

13- Ibid.

14- Late Night With David Letterman, Sept. 17, 2001.

15- Gertie Schoen, �Censorship and the War on Terrorism, John MacArthur Interview,� Mediachannel.org,   Sept. 27, 2001