PressEthic

In an article in The Nation's December 11 issue, Eric Alterman argues that U.S. journalists haven't called out the Bush Administration's many lies loudly enough. Citing Bush's latest flaunting of the national trust--he insisted Rumsfeld would remain in his position, then revealed he'd already worked out plans for the Defense Secretary's resignation a day later--Alterman says that the mainstream media's dainty euphamisms don't do the job. The New York Times' story about a classified memo from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to the White House regarding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Malaki's failure to curb violence in Iraq addresses the question of lying with a similarly breathy touch. It would help voters and legislators alike if someone would just come out and say it: Malaki might be lying.

Alterman reasons that lying leaders destroy democracy:

[B]ecause Bush couldn't be bothered to pretend this time, he created a conundrum for much of the media. The press claims all kinds of special privileges for itself--legal, financial and ethical--based almost exclusively on its constitutionally protected role as the watchdog of the rulers for the ruled. Democratic theory requires that citizens choose their leaders on the basis of true information about their preferences and performances, and the very raison d'être of the political press is to provide it. But if those leaders are free to lie--and the press plays along with those lies--then democracy itself is undermined. How many members of Bush's base, one wonders, roused themselves to run to the polls on November 7 because, well, "say what you will about Bush, at least he promised to stick by that Rumsfeld fellow." A day later their democratic decisions would seem a cruel joke.

The New York Times story says the memo suggests al Malaki could be "misrepresenting his intentions" when talking to Americans: assuring them he isn't willfully encouraging a Shite monopoly on governance while securing that very situation. That would be lying. Tony Snow told the times reporter, however, that “The president has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki." Is that another lie?

It's important to separate these strands of fact and fiction and call them what they are. Malaki very well could be listening patiently to American demands then ignoring them completely in his actions. That's two-faced--that's lying! And we're familiar with it. The American troops fighting in Iraq need to know about it, and voters choosing legislators need to know, too. Tony Snow's comment is no less deceptive: either the entire Bush Administration is naive enough to continue to believe that what Malaki's saying to them is exactly what he thinks and means, or they are striving for no more transparency than their Iraqi counterparts are.

Either way, the media should say something about it. The stories about this memo shouldn't sound as unwitting as the officials they're quoting. If the media can no longer wake people up with a clear, plain and "unvarnished" (NY Times' word choice) voice, who can?