Wampum

Kevin Drum links to Instapundit who writes:

The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media.

As a matter of prediction, how could it be otherwise?

The Republican Party, the Bush administration, and its water carriers were hell bent on fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. They would brook no argument and no dissent from the march to war. The war has been a disaster for American interests. Somebody has to be blamed. Who will it be?

Do you expect the Bush administration to acknowledge the failure of its policy? Do you expect the Republican Party to step up and accept responsibility? They will attempt to shift the blame. The only question is on to whom are they going to try to pin it.

They can not blame the military as support of the military (if not the troops) is bedrock Republican dogma. Iit is difficult for them to assign blame to the Pentagon without suffering a backlash.

They might try to blame war opponents but that becomes harder every day. As a majority of Americans have come to realize that the war was a grave error in judgment, it becomes very bad politics to blame war opponents. Blaming the American people is not the way to win elections. Trying to blame the folks who were against the war from the outset without blaming those came to be against the war later is tricky. Blaming war opponents for being right will have to wait a few years until conservatives can revise history.

Who is left but the media? I am quite confident that the prediction that a lot of people will blame the media is perfectly accurate.

I also agree that the media deserves a share of the blame. That share is dwarfed by the blame due to the Bush administration and its water carriers, of course. The Pentagon under Rumsfeld is due far more than the media, too. Nonetheless, it is hard to see how the media is blameless.

It is indisputable that the administration's reasons for driving to war were different than the ones it used in its public statements. That is the perfect circumstance for the conduct of actual journalism to promote the public interest. What did we get instead?

The cable nets were too busy salivating over the prospect of a ratings spike due to the war to cover much of the substance of the debate on whether or not the war was in the interests of the country. Besides, there was probably a missing attractive white woman out there somewhere, and priorities are priorities.

The Sunday talk shows balanced Republican war supporters against other Republican war supporters with an occasional Democrat war supporter thrown in for good measure. That is not a good formula for informing the public on the merits of the policy.

The New York Times put no controls on Judy Miller as she and her neo-con sources repeatedly lied to the country.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek was far too dazzled by George W. Bush's costume designer to pay much attention to whether or not the war was good policy, well thought out and adequately planned. Questions of whether nor not the administration actually had a post-war reconstruction plan for Iraq could not hold his attention when GWB donned a flight suit.

MSNBC fired its highest rated host out of fear that actual debate would be taken for a lack of patriotism.

It was hard for the American people to get accurate information about whether or not the war was a good idea, whether or not the plan for post war Iraq was practical, or whether there was a plan at all. That is a failure of the media.

Glenn Reynolds is exactly correct. Lots of folks are going to blame the media and the media deserves a small share of the blame.