Global Policy Forum

By Antonia Zerbisias

Forget the fog of war. It is the fog of war coverage that is fouling the airwaves.

Over the past few days, the mainstream print media have devoted acres of verbiage to how TV is coping with the incoming information bombardment. Not very well, it seems. The U.K.'s Guardian, just to cite one paper, turned out a devastating analysis yesterday, examining all the flip-flops TV made on the Basra uprising, or not, and the taking, or not, of Umm Qasr.

You can chalk up at least some of the sniping to professional envy/enmity - not to mention a general misunderstanding amongst the ink-stained community of what their electronic rivals endure when they produce reporting on the run. But then, even TV is turning a semi-sorta-kinda critical lens on itself, as CNN half-heartedly did yesterday, first with an essay on spin by weirder-by-the-day Aaron Brown, and then with house pet pundit Howard Kurtz, who writes a media column for the Washington Post.

Asked by Paula Zahn about sagging optimism about the war now evidenced in the polls, Kurtz said, "I think the problem here is the media were to some degree used by the Pentagon in the huge run up to the war, Paula, where we gave the impression that this was going to be - if not a cake walk, a pretty smashing success for the United States and British forces."

Score a direct hit for understatement. And line many of the messengers up against a wall and hand out blindfolds for how they were complicit in reinforcing the White House line about Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda, about how Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and was ready to drop them on Times Square, about how U.N. weapons inspectors had found said WMD . . .

Yesterday, the trade publication Editor & Publisher, in an indictment of the media, used recent poll data to prove just how badly news organizations have failed the public. "Thousands of American soldiers have marched into Iraq, bombs are falling, and oil fields are ablaze," writes Ari Berman. "But when the war dies down, editors and media analysts should catch their breath and ask themselves: How much did press coverage (or lack of coverage) contribute to the public backing for a pre-emptive invasion without the support of the United Nations?"

Quite a bit, if the appalling ignorance of the majority of Americans is any indication. Still, the media aren't learning, even as the war marches into its second week. Just yesterday, for example, it took CNN almost half an hour to catch up with what was already evident on BBC. As CNN was reciting the Pentagon line about precision bombing - oh, and by the way, isn't it against the Geneva Convention to target a civilian installation such as Iraqi TV? - there was BBC reporting on how a couple of missiles or bombs took out a Baghdad market.

Later, when President George W. Bush spoke at MacDill Air Force Base, he said, without proof, that the coalition forces were "taking every action we can to prevent the Iraqi regime from using its hidden weapons of mass destruction." That claim ran unchallenged on CNN - but not on CBC.

Then there's the business of Al-Jazeera, the pan-Arab news network with some 35 million subscribers, among them some of the world's wealthiest people, including major investors in AOL Time Warner - which owns CNN. For all the blah-de-blah-blah about liberating the Iraqi people and giving them Western democracy, CNN never discussed - by the time I filed this column, anyway - how Al-Jazeera had been banned from both the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. "In light of Al-Jazeera's recent conduct during the war, in which they have broadcast footage of U.S. POWs in alleged violation of the Geneva Convention, they are not welcome to broadcast from our facility," Nasdaq spokesperson Scott Peterson told The Los Angeles Times.

Another big story you might have missed yesterday had you stuck to CNN related to how a division of Halliburton Co., a firm run by Dick Cheney until he became Bush's running mate in 2000, was awarded, without tender or publication of its value, the Pentagon's contract to extinguish oil well fires in Kuwait. CNN mentioned it in one sentence at 10 a.m. and, if it repeated it, I never heard it and I couldn't find it on its Web site.

Another failing is the lack of illumination being shed on the killing of veteran British war correspondent Terry Lloyd by American troops. Instead, we are subjected to constant ominous warnings by Department of Defense spokesperson Victoria Clarke about what could happen to journalists who don't stay in bed with the troops.

Which leads to one of the most irritating aspects of the war coverage: the heavy reliance on tech talk and generals discussing strategy with pointers in map pits, all of which is supposed to pass for context and analysis. As filmmaker Michael Moore told CNN's Brown late Tuesday night, "Thanks for letting me be the first non-general on here in the last few days."

But then, covering dissent is bad for business. According to Broadcasting & Cable, the influential TV news consultancy Frank N. Magid Associates conducted a survey that reveals, "viewers tend to hate seeing (protests)." That could explain why anti-war folks are now tarred as anti-troop by the media. In other words, by showing their disapproval of the invasion, dissenters are "betraying" the boys and girls who are serving as cannon fodder. So what do viewers want?

"Stories about technology that can protect troops or citizens at home, particularly in markets seen as terrorist targets or with large military bases." So, fire up the weapons of mass pandering, folks. But you'd better get out the duct tape next time you hear CNN boast about how it's America's "most trusted name in news."

The incoming may not kill you - but it should have you holding your nose.