The Importance of Reigniting the Conversation on Embedding Journalists Within the Military

As the United States continues its engagement in multiple military conflicts around the globe, a topic that is rarely discussed within the so-called "mainstream" media is how they cover war. Since the United States invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003, reporters from major news networks have taken advantage of the opportunity to become embedded with U.S. combat forces.

This strategy gives reporters an up close and personal look at war through the eyes of the warriors who are on the ground fighting the battle. What is also accomplished by embedding reporters within the U.S. military is the natural bond that forms between the soldiers and the reporters. After all, the reporter is an untrained observer along for the ride and they must put their safety in the hands of those who they are tasked with covering in an objective manner.

Embedded reporters see the shots fired at the opposition, but rarely see the outcome of what those bombs and bullets hit. These reporters are supposed to be able to report on the conflict with an even hand and a balanced set of facts, but when they are being shot at by the opposition and are forced to rely upon the U.S. military to shield them from getting killed, it is a difficult if not impossible task to not have their coverage tainted by the circumstances.

As Bill Berkowitz reminded us in 2003, the system of embedding reporters was designed to exploit this very bond:

Where did the "embedding" idea come from? Have journalists reported both the good and bad news? With the demands of 24/7 coverage, does it matter if reports emanating from within combat units are accurate?

Embedding reporters is the brainchild of Victoria "Torie" Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Clarke brings considerable PR experience to the task of winning the spin war. She recently worked with Hill and Knowlton, the public relations firm heavily involved in Gulf War I, and prior to that she was president of Bozell Eskew Advertising, an issue advocacy and corporate communications company.

According to a 10-page memo prepared for the National Security Council, Clarke, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on board, argued that allowing journalists to report live from the front lines would give Americans the opportunity to get the story, both "good and bad -- before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do."

"Our people in the field need to tell our story. Only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces engaged in ground operations. ... To accomplish this, we will embed media with our units. These embedded media will live, work and travel as part of the units... to facilitate maximum, in-depth coverage."

One senior Pentagon official told World magazine, an evangelical newsweekly, that "The concept was developed to dominate the information market and counter the historical lies and disinformation of the Iraqi regime."

Embedding reporters was a strategy that was meant to counteract what was viewed as the "negative role" that the media played during the Vietnam War. Embedding reporters would effectively grant major networks unparalleled access to the war zone while at the same time forcing the reporters to tell the stories of war through the eyes of the American military.

Norman Soloman, author of "War Made Easy" illustrates this point in 2005:

During the war that followed, the “embedding” of about 700 reporters in spring 2003 was hailed as a breakthrough. Those war correspondents stayed close to the troops invading Iraq, and news reports conveyed some vivid frontline visuals along with compelling personal immediacy. But with the context usually confined to the warriors’ frame of reference, a kind of reciprocal bonding quickly set in.

“I’m with the U.S. 7th Cavalry along the northern Kuwaiti border,” said CNN’s embedded Walter Rodgers during a typical report (3/20/03), using the word “we” to refer interchangeably to his network, the U.S. military or both:

We are in what the army calls its attack position. We have not yet crossed into Iraq at this point. At that point, we will tell you, when we do, of course, that we will cross the line of departure. What we are in is essentially a formation, much the way you would have seen with the U.S. Cavalry in the 19th century American frontier. The Bradley tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles are behind me. Beyond that perimeter, we’ve got dozens more Bradleys and M1A1 main battle tanks. . . .

With American troops moving into action, CNN’s Aaron Brown (3/20/03) emphasized that he and his colleagues “wish them nothing but safety.” He did not express any such wish for the Iraqi people in harm’s way.

Now that the initial advances of troops into foreign lands has transferred into occupation, we tend to not hear as much from embedded reporters. However on NPR's "Morning Edition" recently, I took note of an interesting story.

NPR Reporter Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson was recently embedded with Marines from India Company of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment as they advanced on the city of Marjah in Afghanistan. Her reporting gained attention in part because she captured the audio of a battle with the Taliban that took the life of Lance Cpl. Alejandro Yazzie. Sarhaddi sat down with NPR's Renee Montagne on "Morning Edition" to talk about the experience and just for a second, I thought that there was going to be a constructive opportunity to discuss the conflicts that face embedded reporters (emphasis mine):

MONTAGNE: This then is your introduction to a group of mostly very young Marines with whom you will be rather intimate and in a sense depending on for your life and your well being.

SARHADDI NELSON: Yeah, it's always a challenge because, again, especially with Marines, it's hard for them to have women in fighting units, 'cause they're just not used to it. I mean, simple things like, you know, you need to go to the bathroom - there's no place to go. You have the Afghan soldiers on one side, you have the Marines on the other, and you really can't go away too far because you could step on an IED.

So it really gets to the point where you just have to kind of close your eyes and just suspend modesty and just go. It's as crude and rudimentary as you can possibly imagine. I mean, it makes camping in a national park look like a luxury.

Montagne hits on the significant issue that faces these embedded reporters, but in the same breath fails to hone in on the importance of her observation. Sarhaddi Nelson is depending on these Marines to protect her, but instead of addressing the potential limits that this situation may pose on her reporting, Sarhaddi Nelson instead chooses to talk about how uncomfortable it is to go to the bathroom as a lone woman among the men.

As the interview progresses, Sarhaddi Nelson continues to describe how she bonded with the Marines on who she was reporting (emphasis mine):

SARHADDI NELSON: I was in a room with maybe 20 or 25 Marines. It was freezing. I mean, it was basically a petrol station that had been - the glass had been blown out from the various IEDs that they had detonated. I was in this room, and you have to picture it's just a concrete floor, rat feces everywhere, and all of us were so cold.

It's interesting - I'm not sure how much they would want me to talk about it -but they would spoon. I mean, it was just to stay warm, you know? But, yeah, I mean, you just somehow managed, and you got to be very close, and you got to sit around and talk and just, you know, about families back home. And it was kind of, I mean, in a way it was nice.

This is a clear example of the kind of "reciprocal bonding" that Normon Solomon discusses in the quote above. The reporter experiences the same things as the troops, bonds with them through shared experience and then is reluctant to reveal information that may make their new friends "uncomfortable", in this case spooning for warmth.

As Sarhaddi Nelson continued the story and began to describe the firefight that took the life of Lance Cpl. Alejandro Yazzie, we see her use the term "we" when she describes how the Marines came under attack:

SARHADDI NELSON: It did. I mean, you have to picture when this happened, the patrol, it had been three hours of really intense pressure. We were constantly under fire. I think at that point the platoon officials or leaders had decided that they were going to stop for the night. It was just not safe to push forward anymore. And so we started to approach this field, and it was at that point that these gunmen, you know, jumped up and started firing - or at least it was described as three gunmen to me. I never saw them, I just heard the bullets.

And so everybody dropped down, squatted down, but we were exposed. We were all just behind these mounds of dirt. And Lance Corporal Yazzie, who I'd gotten to know over the last previous days - I didn't realize where he was standing - and I just, I mean, I saw him get hit, and certainly the captain next to him realized that he'd been killed. And it was just, there was nothing anybody could do, because at that stage the gunfire was so heavy.

Take a listen to the full "Morning Edition" piece by listening here:



After listening to the report one must acknowledge the obvious, that this experience was quite troubling and moving for Sarhaddi Nelson. I do not envy the experience of watching anyone being gunned before my eyes as bullets are flying through the air around me. I also do find value in reporting on the soldiers who are involved in these wars. These individuals are mostly young kids who are enduring very difficult circumstances that will more than likely impact them mentally, physically and emotionally for the rest of their lives. It is one side of the human cost of war and it is a story that needs to be told.

The expanded view of embedding reporters within active military units is another story that must be told whenever we hear reports like the one that Sarhaddi Nelson filed for NPR. The practice of embedding reporters was devised in order to form the close bonds that you can clearly hear in her reporting and it must be understood that these bonds exist and affect the overall coverage. These points must be stressed because telling the story of war through the eyes of the warriors is the norm. What is not the norm and the stories that you do not hear on a daily basis are the stories of those on the other end of the battle. When was the last time you saw a reporter embedded with a civilian Afghan family that was in the path of the American military? I don't seem to recall any reporters from CNN who were inside the Iraqi city of Fallujah prior to the American assault.

Embedding reporters within the military has real and very important consequences that impacts the coverage the public receives as well as the way people understand war. While a human face is put on those like Lance Cpl. Yazzie, too often are generic labels ("enemy", "opposition", "collateral damage") given to those who find themselves on the other end of the invading armies.

I wish Renee Montagne would have honed in on the importance of her phrasing when she indicated to Sarhaddi Nelson that these Marines were responsible for her safety as she reported in Afghanistan. There was a real chance to give some greater context to the practice of embedding journalists and how it contributed to Sarhaddi Nelson's coverage of this group of Marines. I fear that if this practice of embedding journalists continues to occur without a greater discussion on the implications, the larger context of this issue may continue to be swept under the rug.


This piece is cross posted here.

President Obama to Address the Nation on Health Care Tonight

President Obama will be addressing a joint session of Congress and the nation this evening on the topic of health care reform. The intended goal of Obama's address will be to clarify some of the details that he would like to see included in a final version of the health care legislation. Up until this point, Obama has let Congress do much of the legwork in negotiating various provisions that are present in the various bills that are under consideration.

There has been much discussion surrounding the "public option", or a government-run insurance program that would compete with the private insurance companies. While it appears that the House should be able to pass a health care bill with a strong public option, it is unclear whether the Senate will be able to muster 60 votes needed to pass a bill with a public option. Because of this, it now appears that Obama is going to express his support for a public option in his speech this evening, while not ruling out signing legislation that does not contain such a provision. From Politico:

In a speech meant to reset debate on the centerpiece of his first-term agenda, Obama can be expected to use language similar to his Labor Day remarks in Cincinnati, where he said: “I continue to believe that a public option within that basket of insurance choices will help improve quality and bring down costs."

Anxious to navigate treacherous divides in the Senate, the president will stop short of drawing a line in the sand, as many liberal House Democrats want. He will not demand that a public option must be in any reform bill he signs, the sources said.

In other words, the President is leaving open the possibility that he will compromise on the compromise. As I have stated previously, the original compromise is the public option. Ever since a single-payer system was declared "off the table", there are some progressives who accepted discussing the public option as a workable compromise to the exclusion of the preferred system. These progressives, like Jane Hamsher, have been instrumental in their activism and getting members of the House to commit themselves to voting for a bill only if it contains a robust public option.

Now, after a month of wild town hall meetings that were ripe with misinformation, we are seeing continuing signs that the White House is not married to the idea of a public option and would be willing to pass legislation even if the final bill does not contain such a provision. Just listen to how careful White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is with his language this morning on NPR's Morning Edition:



Gibbs flat out states: "The public option is not the most essential part of health care reform...even though the public option, the President believes, is a valuable tool, as I said, to create choices and competition."

Look for this to be a microcosm of Obama's speech tonight. Obama will walk the fine line of expressing his personal preference of incorporating a public option, but will allow plenty of room for the health care legislation to continue to be weakened by members of Congress who wish to continue with the status quo. The President wants some kind of reform passed as it will be a big political win on which Democrats (and Obama himself) will be able to put on their resumes in the next elections. I just fear that we are seeing more evidence that Obama is more willing to adapt himself to existing institutions than to work to fundamentally change them. This is an area where we need fundamental change.

Torturing for all the Right Reasons

Alicia Shepard, Ombudsman for National Public Radio, has continually been appearing on NPR programming to defend NPR's policy of not referring to so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" as torture. There has been an interesting development since I wrote about this issue last week that takes Shepard's defense from sad, to ridiculous.

From Glenn Greenwald:

Finally, I was on an NPR station yesterday in Seattle to discuss NPR's ban on the use of the word "torture" to describe Bush administration interrogation tactics. I originally understood that I would be on with NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard, but alas, it turns out that she agreed only to be on the show before me, so as not to engage or otherwise interact with me, so I was forced to listen to her for 15 minutes and wait until she hung up before being able to speak. The segment can be heard here, beginning at the 14:00 mark (though the quality of the recording is poor in places).

The most noteworthy point was her explicit statement (at 17:50) that "the role of a news organization is to lay out the debate"; rarely is the stenographic model of "journalism" -- "we just repeat what each side says and leave it at that" -- so expressly advocated (and see Jon Stewart's perfect mockery of that view). She also said -- when the host asked about the recent example I cited of NPR's calling what was done to a reporter in Gambia "torture" (at the 20:20 mark) -- that NPR will use the word "torture" to describe what other governments do because they do it merely to sadistically inflict pain on people while the U.S. did it for a noble reason: to obtain information about Terrorist attacks. That's really what she said: that when the U.S. did it (as opposed to Evil countries), it was for a good reason. Leaving aside the factual falsity of her claim about American motives, Shepard actually thinks that "torture" is determined by the motive with which the suffering is inflicted. The connection between the Government's ability to get away with these things and the media's warped view of its role really cannot be overstated.

[...]

I've been going back and forth on whether Shepard's deficiency is primarily one of intellect or whether she's just a hard-core Cheneyite. I'm now convinced -- after her statements yesterday on that show I did with after her -- that it's both.

Anyone who can say that what we do is not "torture" because we do it for the right reasons -- whereas it's "torture" when those other countries do it because they're sadistic and bad -- is someone who is devoid of both basic reasoning skills and good motives.

and as Kevin Drum points out, this is indeed what Shepard said!

For the record, here's what she actually said about NPR's piece on Gambia:

In that case, these were strictly tactics to torture him, to punish him, versus in the United States, and the way that it's used, these are tactics used to get information. The Gambian journalist was in jail for his beliefs.


Wow. She really did say that, didn't she? When other people do it for other reasons, it's torture. When we do it for our reasons, it's not.

You don't usually find people willing to say this quite so baldly. Congratulations, Alicia Shepard.

Astounding isn't it? Shepard's defense of NPR's decision to not use the word "torture" (in describing the tactics approved by the Bush Administration) has descended into the realm of pathetic. To (wrongly) advance the argument or moral superiority when discussing the reasoning behind torture and then using that as justification for why NPR shouldn't call it torture, is absurd on every possible level. Shepard's defense boils down to "we torture for good reasons" and "others torture for bad reasons", therefore, we shouldn't describe our techniques as "torture" when reporting on them. Can it be any clearer why critical journalism is suffering? And this is from National Public Radio.

NPR Ombudsman Continues to Defend NPR's Policy of not Using the Word "Torture"

I have been keeping an eye on an interesting back and forth that has been going on over the last week between the Ombudsman for National Public Radio, Alicia Shepard and journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Shepard has been receiving emails from listeners of NPR about their policy of not using the word "torture" in describing waterboarding and other techniques that were used during the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. (Instead, NPR opts to use the terms "harsh interrogation tactics" and "enhanced interrogation techniques".)

In response to these letters from viewers, Shepard wrote a piece in order to address these concerns. From her article:

How should NPR describe the tactics used to coerce information out of terrorism suspects?

Ted Koppel, the former ABC Nightline host and commentator on Talk of the Nation, said in May that the U.S. should "define it [torture] as being any technique or practice which, when applied to an American prisoner in some other country or captured by some other entity, that we would object to. If we object to it being done to an American, then I think it's thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=114432749054567487orture."

That seems clear enough, but the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed.

Both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture. Officials during the Bush administration acknowledged the use of what they called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Also, not all interrogation could be classified as torture. Sleep deprivation, nudity and facial slaps are different from, say, pouring water on a cloth over someone's face for 20 to 40 seconds to create the sensation of drowning -- a practice known as waterboarding.

[...]

It's a no-win case for journalists. If journalists use the words "harsh interrogation techniques," they can be seen as siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer. If journalists use the word "torture," then they can be accused of siding with those who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration.

There has been no clear consensus on what constitutes torture, noted Brian Duffy, NPR's former managing editor in late April.

[...]

To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization. For example, reporters could say that the U.S. military poured water down a detainee's mouth and nostrils for 40 seconds. Or they could detail such self-explanatory techniques as forcing detainees into cramped confines crawling with insects, or forced to stand for hours along side a wall.

A basic rule of vivid writing is: "Show, Don't Tell." An excellent example of using facts rather than coded language was a 2005 piece by former NPR reporter John McChesney. It gave meticulous details of tactics used against an Iraqi detainee at Abu Graib who later died.

Glenn Greenwald, who has written extensively about the issue of torture and the media coverage that surrounds the debate, responded to Shepard's piece with an entry of his own. Greenwald writes:

She describes Koppel’s standard as "clear enough" -- and it is. So why doesn’t NPR use that standard? Because -- she argues -- "the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed."

So what? How does the fact that torture is illegal mean that NPR shouldn’t describe as "torture" tactics which -- when used against Americans -- the U.S. government has long condemned as "torture"? Her objection to Koppel’s very sensible standard is a total non-sequitur. How does the criminality of torture serve as an argument against what Koppel advocated? It doesn't. She’s just in defend-NPR-at-any-cost mode and wants to justify its refusal to use the word "torture," and Koppel’s standard would compel the opposite conclusion, because so many of the tactics that were authorized by Bush were ones the U.S. -- and the rest of the civilized world -- have always called "torture."

[...]

The U.S. has prosecuted those acts as torture in the past. Multiple media outlets and even the U.S. Government have routinely described those acts as “torture” when used against Americans, rather than by Americans. The tactics are ones we copied from manuals designed to inure our own troops to the torture techniques used by some of the world’s worst tyrants. They resulted in numerous deaths. Until the Bush administration decided to call it something other than "torture" so that they could do it, nobody had any questions about whether this was "torture."

If there are tactics about which there is a reasonable dispute, then those need not be called torture by NPR. But many of the tactics that were authorized are "torture" in every sense of the word.

[...]

Here’s the nub of the matter – the crux of journalistic decay in America. Who cares if NPR is "seen" as siding with the White House or its critics? How it is perceived -- and who it angers -- should have nothing to do with how it reports. Its reporting should be guided by the truth, by verifiable facts, and by the objective meaning of words [notably, NPR's excuse -- "the Right will get angry at us if we call it 'torture'" -- is identical to The Washington Post's excuse for why they stopped calling Dan Froomkin a reporter (it angers the Right); it's amazing how much The Liberal Media makes editorial decisions based on a desire to please the Right].

Also, note that Shepard explicitly admits that, with its language choice, NPR has opted to be "seen siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer." That, too, is an odd choice for a supposedly Liberal Media outlet. And note her snide and revealing assumption -- conventional wisdom among the establishment media -- that the only people who want these tactics to be called "torture" are those "who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration" (or, as David Ignatius put it, "liberal score-settlers").

Greenwald then extended an interview request to Shepard so that the two could discuss the issue on Salon Radio. Shepard declined the request saying that she didn't want to get into a "shouting match". Instead, Shepard has gone on a couple of NPR shows to discuss and defend her article. Here is an audio clip of her on "On The Media" offering some of the same justification:



In response Greenwald wrote another piece highlighting the fact that Shepard had declined the interview request, pointing out that none of his interviews could be categorized as a "shouting match", and further criticizing her position. That entry resulted in this wacky email exchange between NPR's Senior Manager of Media Relations, Anna Christopher, and Glenn:

E-mail from Anna Christopher to GG:

Glenn,

I just saw your most recent column, criticizing Lisa [sic] Shepard for declining your interview request. Could you please give me a call when you have a chance?

If you or your interns want to make a request to interview NPR staff, that goes through me. I would have been able to tell your intern – who so tenaciously pursued her last week – that Lisa was on vacation and unreachable until Thursday. She didn’t ignore your request. And the last time I checked, requests are just that – requests. Not demands. Able to be accepted or declined.

Thank you,

Anna

Anna Christopher | Senior Manager, Media Relations

* * * * *

Reply from GG to Anna Christopher:



Anna - You apparently didn't read the column very carefully. We were told by someone from NPR -- Anna Tauzin -- that Alicia Shepard was [out of the office] last week and would therefore respond to the interview request by Monday. That's exactly what I wrote today. Tauzin did authorize us to say: "We were told by NPR that the Ombudsman is out of the office this week and her office will get back to us by Monday with a response." That's exactly what I wrote.

I didn't say she ignored my request, so why would you deny that she did? In fact, I said the opposite: that she responded to the request by refusing to be interviewed.

If there are internal NPR structures about who has what responsibilities, that's up to NPR to make clear. Tauzin never once said it was you who had to be contacted for the interview request. She was more than willing to convey the request to Shepard, and the Salon intern then spoke with Shepard herself yesterday.

I didn't suggest that Shepard broke the law by refusing to be interviewed by me -- only that people like her who opine pedantically on controversial matters have an ethical obligation to engage critics of their views.

If you'd still like to talk, let me know and I'll give you a call -

Glenn Greenwald

* * * * *

No further reply received from NPR.

In listening to Shepard's responses and her other appearance on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, she continues to assert that this is a political debate and that NPR should not be taking sides in this debate by labeling tactics such as waterboarding, as torture. This is an important point in her defense and in journalism today as a whole. Shepard appears to view objectivity as presenting both sides of a debate and letting the viewers/listeners decide for themselves what is true. This should not be the role of journalists whose job it is to collect facts on a story and then present these facts regardless of who it offends or how they will be "perceived" by one side of the debate.

Objectivity is not saying "while one side of the debate claims that 2 plus 2 equals four, others are arguing that 2 plus 2 actually equals five." The role of journalism is to assert that it is an undeniable fact that 2 plus 2 equals four and that the people who disputing this fact have no basis for doing so. In this example above, if one presents both "sides" of this story, it gives equal validation to both arguments regardless of the indisputable fact that 2 plus 2 really does equal four. There can be no debate over this so why should it be the role of a journalist to pretend like there is one?

Similarly, just because the Bush Administration claims that waterboarding, a tactic which they approved and used on detainees, does not constitute torture does not automatically make it so. I am glad that Greenwald pointed out an exchange that happened on the Daily Show back in 2004 which illustrates this quite well:

Stewart: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn't been disputed for 35 years.
Corddry: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
Stewart: That's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
Corddry: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.
Stewart: But isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?
Corddry: I'm sorry, "my opinion"? I don't have opinions. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity"—might want to look it up some day.
Stewart: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?
Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

Without objective analysis of facts and evidence by journalists, they merely become stenographers who repeat what they hear no matter the validity of the claims. Under this policy, all one side would need to do would be to lie, assert the lies as fact, and get them out into the media to make their claims look like they have credibility. As Judith Miller knows all too well, this is probably not the best strategy.

Alicia Shepard's defense of the official NPR policy is a prime example of what is wrong with the so-called "mainstream media" in today's country and it shows just have far journalistic integrity has slipped over the years. In the "Talk of the Nation" segment she specifically states that in the discussion surrounding torture the Bush Administration does "have a different side. Whether it is to dupe people or not, again, the role of a journalist is to put that information out there..." So according to Shepard, even if government officials are lying or trying to "dupe" people, it is the "role of journalists" to put that false message out to the public without any investigation into the validity of the claims so the public can draw their own conclusions.

If anyone is still wondering how the media could have provided us with coverage that helped lead us into the Iraq War, this is a prime exhibit of the mindset that allows for the media to uncritically report facetious claims.