The
Unbalanced Hawks at the Washington Post
by
Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Dissident Voice
March 4, 2003
What
is going on at the Washington Post?
We would say that the Post
editorial pages have become an outpost of the Defense Department -- except that
there is probably more dissent about the pending war in Iraq in the Pentagon
than there is on the Post editorial pages.
In February alone, the Post
editorialized nine times in favor of war, the last of those a full two columns
of text, arguing against the considerable critical reader response the page had
received for pounding the drums of war.
Over the six-month period
from September through February, the leading newspaper in the nation's capital
has editorialized 26 times in favor of war. It has sometimes been critical of
the Bush administration, it has sometimes commented on developments in the
drive to war without offering an opinion on the case for war itself, but it has
never offered a peep against military action in Iraq.
The op-ed page, which might
offer some balance, has also been heavily slanted in favor of war.
In February, the Post op-ed
page ran 34 columns that took a position on the war: 24 favored war and 10 were
opposed, at least in part. (Another 22 mentioned Iraq, and sometimes were
focused exclusively on Iraq, but didn't clearly take a position for or against
the war.)
Over the last four months,
the Post has run 46 op-ed pieces favoring the war, and only 21 opposed.
This constitutes a
significant change from September and October, when the opinion pieces were
much more balanced, and even tilted slightly in favor of peace.
A few words on our
methodology: We reviewed every editorial and op-ed piece in the Post over the
last six months that contained the word "Iraq." We looked at the
substance of the articles, and did not pre-judge based on the author. We
categorized as neutral pieces which mentioned Iraq as an aside, or which
discussed the war without taking a position. For example, an article which
assesses how European countries are responding to U.S. Iraq-related proposals,
but does not take a position on the war itself, is categorized as neutral.
Neutral articles are not included in our tally.
The methodology tends to
undercount pro-war columns. We categorized as neutral articles which we thought
presumed a certain position on the war, but which did not explicitly articulate
it. Over the last four months, there were 17 "neutral" articles which
we believe had a pro-war slant, and only five "neutral" pieces with
an anti-war orientation.
Our methodology also tended
to overcount pro-peace op-eds. We tallied an op-ed as pro-peace if it took a
position opposing the drive to war on the issue of the moment -- even if the
author made clear that they favored war on slightly different terms than the
President proposed at the time (for example, if UN authorization was obtained).
Someone else reviewing the
Post editorial page might disagree with our categorization of this or that
article. We concede it may be rough around the edges. But overall, we think
other reviewers would agree that our count is in the ballpark, and tends to
underestimate the disparity between pro- and anti-war pieces.
Moreover, the dramatic
quantitative tilt in favor of the war if anything underplays how pro-war the
Post's editorial pages have been.
Among the regular columnists
at the Post, those providing pieces that we considered anti-war include E.J.
Dionne, a self-described "doubter" not opponent of the war, Mary
McGrory, who pronounced herself convinced by Colin Powell's presentation to the
United Nations (a position from which she has backtracked) and Richard Cohen,
who actually is pro-war. Only William Rasberry could be labeled a genuine and
consistent opponent of war.
On the other side, the
regular pro-war columnists are extraordinarily harsh and shrill. George Will
labeled David Bonior and James McDermott, two congresspeople who visited Iraq,
"American collaborators" with and "useful idiots" for
Saddam. Michael Kelly, in one of his calmer moments, says no
"serious" person can argue the case for peace. Charles Krauthammer
says that those who call for UN authorization of U.S. military action in Iraq
are guilty of a "kind of moral idiocy."
The Post op-ed page has been
full of attacks on anti-war protesters. Richard Cohen has managed to author
attacks on John Le Carre, for an anti-war column he wrote, poets against the
war, and Representative Dennis Kucinich. Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle
in calling Kucinich a "liar" (or at very least a "fool"),
because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S.
interest in Iraqi oil. (Is this really a controversial claim? Pro-war New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman says that to deny a U.S. war in Iraq is partly
about oil is "laughable.")
Neither Le Carre, the poets,
nor Kucinich has been given space on the Post op-ed page.
Indeed, virtually no one who
could be considered part of the peace movement has been given space. The only
exceptions: A column by Hank Perritt, then a Democratic congressional candidate
from Illinois, appeared in September. Morton Halperin argued the case for
containment over war in February. And Reverend Bob Edgar, a former member of Congress
who now heads the National Council of Churches, a key mover in the anti-war
movement, was permitted a short piece that appeared in the week between
Christmas and New Year's, when readership and attention to serious issues is at
a lowpoint.
Edgar only was given the
slot after editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, in an op-ed, characterized the
anti-war movement, and Edgar by name, as "Saddam's lawyers."
Does this shockingly
one-sided treatment on the Post editorial pages of the major issue of the day
matter?
It matters a lot.
The Washington Post and the
New York Times are the two papers that most fundamentally set the boundaries
for legitimate opinion in Washington, D.C. The extraordinary tilt for war in
the Post editorial pages in the last four months makes it harder for
officialdom in Washington and the Establishment generally to speak out against
war.
Everyone who might be
characterized as an "insider" in the political-military-corporate
establishment knows there are major internal divisions on the prospect of war
among elder statesmen, retired military brass and present-day corporate CEOs.
There are many reasons those voices are inhibited from speaking out, but the
Post's extremist editorial pages are certainly a real contributor.
The failure to give a
prominent platform to anti-war voices has also worked to soften the debate
among the citizenry. It's no answer to say a vibrant anti-war movement, reliant
on the Internet, its own communications channels and dissenting voices in other
major media outlets, has sprung up. Sending out an e-mail missive is not
exactly the same thing as publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post.
The Post editorial page
editors have failed to fulfill their duty to democracy. The heavy slant on the
editorial pages, the extreme pro-war rhetoric offset only by hedging and
uncertain war critics, and the scurrilous attacks on the anti-war movement to which
minimal response has been permitted -- all have undermined rather than fueled a
robust national debate.
At this point, there is no
real way for the Post to rectify its wrongdoing. It could start to mitigate the
effect by immediately making a conscious effort to solicit and publish a
disproportionately high number of pro-peace op-eds, and to let the peace
movement occasionally speak for itself, especially since the paper's regular
columnists so savagely and repeatedly attack it.
Unfortunately, the drive to
war, which the Post editorial pages have helped fuel, may not stop in Iraq.
There is good reason to believe that a war with Iraq will be followed by calls
from the hawks at the Post and around the administration for more military
action, against some other target. Will the paper's editorial page editors find
a better way to achieve balance in advance of the next military buildup? Or are
the paper's editorial pages now simply devoted to the Permanent War Campaign?
Russell Mokhiber is editor of
the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor
of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt
for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org).