Gimme Shelter (Cat)

It's man/cat love but it's not wrong. Zoe, shelter cat--previously featured to wide popularity looking out window at deer and turkeys--turning 3 next month.

Paul Williams, 'Crawdaddy!' Founder, Dies

UPDATE   NYT tonight with full obit on Paul, including quotes from my friend Peter Knobler, who was editor at Crawdaddy for nearly all of the 1970s while I served as #2.

Earlier: After years of suffering from dementia, Paul Williams, who founded "the first magazine to take rock 'n roll seriously," Crawdaddy!, has died at the age of 64, his wife Cindy Lee Berryhill reports here.   As some know, I was senior editor at Crawdaddy! for nearly all of the 1970s.  Paul had founded the magazine in 1967, a year before Jann Wenner had the bright idea for Rolling Stone, while still a student at Swarthmore.   He wrote the earliest "modern" rock essays and reviews--perhaps the most famous on Brian Wilson and his aborted Smile project--and gave a start to many of the legendary names of the genre from the late-1960s.   Hence he was often called "The Father of Rock Criticism."

Not exactly a businessman, he sold the magazine within a few years, but we hired him to write a regular column and some features (I especially recall a cover story on the Stones) around 1973, and he often visited our office at 13th Street and Fifth Avenue in the Village.   Ray Mungo was his good friend then and Paul also wrote quite a bit for us on various ecology and travel adventures.   Gentle, soft-spoken guy.  Our version of Crawdaddy! folded in 1979, and Paul later re-claimed the name and published it as a "zine."  Among many other projects, he started documenting every concert Dylan ever performed. He sold it again in 2003 and it lasted until 2011 as an online magazine.  He was, among other interesting things, executor of Philip K. Dick's estate.  He also sang on John and Yoko's "Give Peace a Chance. " A bicycle accident in the 1990s may had led to early onset dementia.  Many musicians played benefits to raise money for his care in recent years. 

His early essay on Procol Harum's first album from 1967 might not be his greatest piece but  at least it gives you an idea of why this form of writing--about, of all things,  rock 'n roll--was so new.  I also recall a piece on Neil Young that "blew my mind." Here's young Neil Young and rare Brian doing "Surf's Up" from original Smile.

Another White Supremacist Hit?

Disturbing and scary story out of Texas where D.A. and wife slain in their home--shortly after assistant murdered.  And possible link to another white supremacist assassination.   Also angle of how little guns protect you if someone really...gunning...for you: this guy boasted that he was fully armed and careful and former soldier.

The killings came less than two weeks after Colorado’s prison chief was gunned down at his front door by a white-supremacist ex-convict, and two months after Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse was shot to death in a parking lot a block from his office Jan. 31. No arrests have been made in Hasse’s slaying.

A 'Pastoral' Afternoon

Nice afternoon to enjoy Beethoven's Symphony No. 6, the "Pastoral," in what my esteemed buddy Tim Page calls its greatest rendition, via Klemperer.

Soul Stirring for Easter

A good day to recall that Sam Cooke and the Soul Stirrers, 1951-1956, among five greatest contributions to American music of past decades.

Roll Away the Stone

A different sort of Easter message from early Leon Russell.

For Opening Day

From my photo blog: "Right Field Foul Line, Ball Boy, CitiField, New York."

Sunday Morning in the Church of Beethoven

For this weekly feature, what else could it be LvB's "Hallelujah" chorus?  In his hands, of course, it's roll-away-the-rock-and-roll. 

'NYT' Caves on 'Beef Stroganoff'

It was a Twitter firestorm all day--that NYT obit for a female rocket scientist that led with her cooking and motherly abilities.  Even Public Ed. Margaret Sullivan complained about it on Twitter.  Now it's been changed!  Where's the beef?  Gone.  Now that little rocket scientist detail is at top.  See it all here. Current Times obit online here, but the original did run in print. But why was that stroganoff so "mean"? And they didn't even publish a recipe.

UPDATE  Interesting mini-backlash, as some express unhappiness--again via Twitter--that the Times would give in so easy to readers' complaints when story was not in error.  Also, takes creativity away from writers--will fear that they can't try unusual approaches.  And more.   Typical tweet:  "I am conflicted here; I think the new lead is better, but admit the idea of writing by popular consent spooks me." Your thoughts?

Greg Mitchell's book "So Wrong For So Long," on media misconduct and the Iraq war, was published this month in an updated edition and for the first time as an e-book.

Patti's "Easter"

"Easter Sunday, we were walking...."

Easing Into Easter

Just the greatest piece of "religious" (I'd use the word, "spiritual") music ever, the Benedictus from Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis."

Another Music Legend Dies

Last night it was ace session guitarist Hugh McCracken.   Today it's producer Phil Ramone, age 79.  His work as an engineer went as far back as Lesley Gore and "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" in the 1960s but he rose to fame--and many interviews with Crawdaddy when I was there-- as producer of Paul Simon's classic Still Crazy After All These Years.  Also worked with everyone from Billy Joel and Aretha and jazz greats.  No relation to The Ramones.  Below, interview with Phil:

Beethoven's 'Single Breath'

Beth Levin's recent live performances of Beethoven's final three piano sonatas--the Everests of the form--were widely hailed.  Now a new CD, excerpts below.  I saw Mitsuko Uchida do them live at Carnegie about three years ago, playing them one after the other after asking for no applause or bows between them.  A single breath.

Van Gogh at Getty

For Vincent's birthday:  Wouldn't he have been amazed when he died and his paintings sold for pennies at all that this one (painted at the asylum at San Remy), when purchased by the Getty in Los Angeles (where I took this picture last week) a couple of decades back, would set a record at the time --more than $70 million, as I recall.  Fortunately, you can still visit and ponder.   Another tribute photo I posted last night.  My photo blog here.

My 'Wash Post' Dispute, Re-Visited

"Listening Post" from AJE with a segment just posted, see below, on U.S. mea culpas (or lack of) and 10th anniversary of Iraq war, including a bit on Wash Post killing my article and running that "media didn't fail" piece last week.   Special guest appearance by yours truly.

Hugh McCracken, Session Man, Dies

One of the legendary session guitarists of the past 45 years, Hugh McCracken has died.  He worked with a Who's Who on some of their best albums, including John and Paul, Steely Dan, Loudon, Dr. John and and on.   Credits are not quite clear but he might have provided one of the most famous guitar bits of the 1960s, for Van the Man's "Brown-Eyed Girl."  Below that, playing rhythm guitar on B.B.'s "The Thrill Is Gone."

J.C.: Woody Approve?

Let's think of him like this, this time around.   U2 does Woody Guthrie's "Jesus Christ."

Vincent's Birthday

Arrives tomorrow.  Born in 1853.  Below my photo of the church he painted in Auvers, shortly before his death--and just down the hill from where he is now buried (next to Theo).  I've colorized the sky in homage.  My photo blog here.

Hiroshima Truthers!

Now maybe the greatest conspiracy theory ever!  Of course, I say this as someone who has written two books and maybe 200 articles on the atomic bombings of 1945.  It seems The Bomb wasn't used--and still doesn't work! With photo proof! And reference to the bomb "allegedly:dropped on Nagasaki! "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply destroyed by US conventional napalm, carpet, morning 3 to 5 a.m., terror bombing raids by 300 - 400 B-29 planes."  Yet North Korea and even Oliver Stone have fallen for the hoax!

In contrast see my book Atomic Cover-Up.  Yes, there was truth suppressed--but it came after real atomic bombs were used. 

My Neighbor, a Baldwin, Pleads Guilty

Yes, the rightwing, uber-Christian, maybe not-so-talented Baldwin, Stephen, lives a block away as the crow flies--there goes the neighborhood!--and was once notorious locally for picketing a would-be sex video store.  Then he got arrested and faced felony charges--as an unusual suspect in these parts--for not paying his state taxes for several years.   Our local Patch reports a happy day,  sort of,  for Steve.  He pleads guilty but gets to avoid four years in prison. That's his mug shot left--one of classiest ever!

Another for Good Friday

Richard and Linda Thompson, very electric 1970s "Calvary Cross." 

Dummy Rummy Still Looks for WMDs?

It was ten years ago tomorrow but seems like yesterday.  Appearing on ABC's This Week two weeks after the invasion,  Rumsfeld said, "We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikirt and Baghdad  and east, west, south and north somewhat."  So they would go  from known known to unknown knowns to known unknowns.

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to Bradley Manning’s hearing last month.  

Baseball, Photos, Books, Beethoven

Hey, what else really matters?  So for a slow Good Friday, here are links to some of my other pages here:  My collection of very arty, centuries-old baseball cards.  My photo blog with images I somehow captured around the world in recent years.  Links for about a dozen of my books.  And my Roll Over, Beethoven blog.

That Controversial WikiLeaks Doc

Just posted, first trailer for Alex Gibney doc, coming at end of May.  WikiLeaks, allies and Assange have already denounced it strongly, Gibney defended.

Beethoven's Funeral

The greatest artist the West produced, following maybe Shakespeare, died this week in 1827 and his funeral, drawing massive crowds for the day in Vienna, was held on this day.  Schubert carried a torch and was dead not many months later (and they are now buried nearly side-by-side).    My book with Kerry Candaele here.   Below, one of his last pieces--still ahead of its time, if written in 2013.  Below that, trailer for Kerry's upcoming film, for which I serve as a producer.

When Good Friday Comes

One of the finest vocal performances ever--and greatest Good Friday song--featuring Sam Cooke with the Soul Stirrers, mid-1950s. 

Young Days, for Paul

In tribute to Paul Williams, founder of my old magazine Crawdaddy (see here) and "The Father of Rock Criticism,"  one of his early obsessions, Neil Young doing "Mr. Soul,"  with the Springfield, probably 1967.  But his greatest piece, on Brian Wilson's struggle to record the ill-fated Smile album, was my introduction to Paul about the same time.  Three years later I was writing for Rolling Stone.  Brian singing the great "Surf's Up" from those sessions below.

Adam Lanza's Gun Case

UPDATE:    Don't miss NYT graphic of what the ammo collection and other gun-related things looked like in the Lanza arsenal.

Earlier: We've known for months about the number of weapons and ammo that Adam Lanza took from the case in the home he shared with his mother (after shooting her dead)  to Sandy Hook Elementary School.   But contents of search warrants have just been released and here's a sheet below (larger view here)  showing the partial contents of the gun case he left behind--including boxes and boxes of ammo, plus protective gear.  There's so much it's "continued on next page" (see here) where we see listed a rifle, more ammo, and "Adam Lanza's National Rifle Association certificate."  That might not be a membership card but a certificate that he had attended an NRA class.

Also found: "NRA Guide to the Basics of Pistol Shooting" book. Three samurai swords.  And: "Among the other items seized were a holiday card containing a check from his mother to buy a firearm, an article from The New York Times about a school shooting at Northern Illinois University and three photographs of what appeared to be a dead person covered with plastic and blood."

The 'Sanitized' War

My new piece at The Nation: Media "cover-up" from the start in Iraq coverage--images of war sanitized. 

Good Morning, America

Today's image from my photo blog.  From my front yard.  If you haven't checked out my photo blog, go here.

When Marlon Refused the Oscar

That famous moment on this date in 1973, as Sasheen Littlefeather delivers his message (to some boos but, contrary to myth, mostly applause).   Bonus:   Here's text of full message from Brando written to go with his turn down.

Lumineers Do Dylan

Didn't expect to find the band doing old protest Bob.  And we might as well throw "The Weight" out there, too.

'Bungling' the Invasion

My new piece at The Nation:  How the U.S. media, 10 years ago, 'bungled" coverage of the early days of the Iraq war. 

A Wolfowitz at the Door

In one of the most infamous quotes of the entire Iraq debacle, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz (who last week continued to defend the war), told the House Appropriations Committee that  oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war. "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."  How did that turn out?


Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to this past week.

At the Fifth Anniversary

Reader reminded me that I was on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman when my Iraq book (just out in edition updated to yesterday) first came out.  Might be interesting to judge commentary then vs. now.

And Then Along Came...Many

When he died recently, and a few obits appeared, most of us--even folks who worked at Crawdaddy (e.g. me)--had never heard his name for decades, if ever.  Tandyn Almer.  Who?  Seems that he wrote the classic early pot song "Along Comes Mary" for The Association around 1966, and then pretty much disappeared, first from the charts, then...in every way.  Interesting cat.  Also invented "the perfect bong." (James Franco, take notice.)  Now there's a New Yorker piece and a likely very uneven collection of his demos.   Didn't know he co-wrote two very good post-Brian Beach Boys songs, "Marcella" and "Sail on Sailor."

Hello, Marianne

Who knew? There's an entire book about one of the great love stories--Leonard Cohen and Marianne Ihlen.  Also: a radio broadcast where both of them speak.  And: Marianne seems to have just joined Facebook.   Most importantly:  Leonard is still doing the classic song in concert.  I haven't seen him do it since the mid-1970s but will be there for it at Radio City in a few days.   Below, from 1979. Bonus: Leonard's son Adam does it recently in London.

Hysteria in Tennesse: Muslim 'Foot Bath' Discovered in Capitol!

Panic ensues until it is discovered as....a mop thingy.   I can't do better than quote from part of AP (not Onion) story.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Sometimes a mop sink is just a mop sink.  In Tennessee, legislative staffers and building managers have sought to reassure a few concerned lawmakers that recent state Capitol renovations didn't install special facilities for Muslims to wash their feet before praying. State officials say a new sink is instead meant to make it easier for custodial staff to fill buckets and clean mops.

Senate Clerk Russell Humphrey said he had been approached by two lawmakers to inquire about a new basin, which replaced a utility sink that had been mounted higher on the wall.

State Sen. Bill Ketron said he had asked about the change after being approached about it by a fellow Republican, Rep. Judd Matheny.

Iraq War Coverage by BBC: What Americans Missed

Ten years ago tomorrow, amid all of the flag-waving TV coverage of the Iraq invasion in the U.S., Howard Kurtz wrote a piece for The Washington Post on how one arm of the BBC was covering the war a lot more objectively, even with the Brits very much a part of it (and the network funded by the government), and drawing much criticism.   See the quotes re: Andrew Sullivan, who at least turned against the war and just last week apologized again for his hawkishness.   An excerpt below, after Kurtz noted that the tone of BBC World was "so different from that of the American networks that it sometimes seems to be examining a different
war."

The key, BBC News Director Richard Sambrook says from London, is "not having a particular country's agenda or values at the forefront of what we're doing. We try to take an international approach to the news, to a greater extent than any of the U.S. nets. We try to build in a perspective from other Arab countries."

This cover-all-sides style, even as British troops are under fire, has brought the BBC a steady fusillade of criticism.

"The Beeb is a mandatory government-run service staffed with the usual people who go into government-run media, i.e. left-wing hacks," British expatriate Andrew Sullivan writes on his Web site. "The BBC is increasingly perceived, even by sympathetic parties, as the voice in part of the anti-war forces. . . . How the Beeb ceased to become an objective news source and became a broadcast version of The Nation is one of the great tragedies of modern journalism."

At the same time, says Sambrook, some British officials have fired off faxes, saying that "we need to point out more strongly than we are the history of human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein. They don't think we give enough emphasis to the wrongs of the enemy."

The stark contrast of the understated British tone makes the American broadcasts seem flag-waving and patriotic. The underlying assumption in these broadcasts seems to be that the U.S. of A. is fighting for a just cause, and the embedded correspondents, while providing unvarnished reports, are openly sympathetic to our fighting men and women...

 Katty Kay, a Washington correspondent for the BBC, says there's been no shortage of criticism in this country "that the American media has been trying to sell the war. Perhaps the BBC all along has been questioning both sides on whether the war was justified.

"British journalism has a culture of being quite critical and quite aggressive in our interviews of politicians and officials," Kay says. When Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's closest ally on Iraq, took questions at the White House, "the toughest questions to President Bush all came from British journalists, not the White House press corps."

This attitude permeates the BBC's sober coverage, which does not feature a parade of retired generals or emotional interviews with families of injured soldiers. On "Breakfast News," a morning show seen only in Britain, anchor Natasha Kaplinsky began a discussion with her "defence correspondent" by saying: "Let's talk about the politicians and how they're manipulating public perceptions."

My Photo Blog

Haven't posted this link here in quite awhile.  Check it out--my fairly recent photos from around (some of) the world.  Today's pick below.

10 Years Ago: Poll Found Most Blacks Opposing Iraq Invasion

As I continue to look back on coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq day-by-day ten years ago, I came across this NYT report from this date in 2003 (six days into the attack) on a new Times/CBS poll measuring public support for war just after it began.  There's a lot to chew on but here are two highlights:

--You've no doubt seen all the recent media reports on how "everyone" backed the war so-don't-blame-us.  The poll, for one thing, finds quite a racial gap:  only about 4 in 10 blacks backed the invasion, half the percentage of whites.

--After we went to war, some Americans were shocked that the Iraqis were mounting much of a resistance at all.   The number who thought the war (which would drag on for, oh,  eight years) would go very easily was already plunging.

''I think I was living in a pipe dream thinking no one would get killed,'' Shirley Johnson, 79, a registered Republican from Davenport, Iowa, said in a follow-up interview. ''But all of a sudden people were getting killed, and I was horrified.''  Pam Wallman, 60, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said, ''I think the American public was duped into believing that our troops could just go in there, clean everything up and come home in 10 days.''

Americans said Mr. Bush had failed to give them enough information about how long the war might last, how much it might cost and how many Americans might die in the effort. They also said Mr. Bush had failed to detail how the administration would manage a postwar Iraq. 

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to Bradley Manning’s hearing last month.  

Favorite Line Cut from 'Wash Post' Piece

As you may know, the Post rejected my piece on Iraq and the 10th anniversary a few days ago, and quite a flap has ensued, but even before that I had to cut some of the article for space.  This quote from Bob Simon, the veteran CBS correspondent, from the Bill Moyers special on the media and the war, always amazed me:

Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to "dig deeper," and he replied, "No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas, I don't think we followed up on this." Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a "softer" way, explaining to Moyers: "I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light – if that doesn't seem ridiculous."

Moyers then repeated, "Going to war--almost light," as Simon nods.

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to Bradley Manning’s hearing last month.  

New Edition of My Book on Iraq War (and Media Failures) Published This Week!

And it's expanded and updated--right up to this week--and in e-book form for the first time.  Still with the Bruce Springsteen preface.  The popular book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq, is now on sale at just $3.39 for next two days.   Covers the war, and the media misconduct, from the "run-up" to the "surge," plus a new Introduction and lengthy Afterword that traces the tragedy right up to last month's Bradley Manning hearing.  It's all here: from Judy Miller to Valerie Plame (plus Stephen Colbert's Bush roast).  E-book works with Kindle, iPads, phones, etc. with free apps.  Here are some blurbs.

"Greg Mitchell has given us a razor-sharp critique of how the media and the government connived in one of the great blunders of American foreign policy. Every aspiring journalist, every veteran, every pundit—and every citizen who cares about the difference between illusion and reality, propaganda and the truth, and looks to the press to help keep them separate—should read this book. Twice." — Bill Moyers

“The profound failure of the American press with regard to the Iraq War may very well be the most significant political story of this generation. Greg Mitchell has established himself as one of our country's most perceptive media critics, and here he provides invaluable insight into how massive journalistic failures enabled the greatest strategic disaster in the nation's history.” — Glenn Greenwald,  Guardian writer and author of A Tragic Legacy.

“Worthy of shelving alongside the best of the Iraq books.”-- Kirkus Reviews

"Anyone who cares about the integrity of the American media should read this book. Greg Mitchell asks tough questions about the Iraq war that should have been asked long ago, in a poignant, patriotic, and thoughtful dissection of our war in Iraq. Mitchell names names and places blame on those who’ve blundered. Examining the most complex issue of our time, he connects the dots like no one else has." — Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America

"Excellent book!" --  Bruce Springsteen

"A handy companion.  What he succeeds in doing is laying out a five-year, month-by-month chronicle of how correspondents and pundits were duped, while he intermingles their misplaced observations with those rare, shining moments of press prescience." -- David Friend, Vanity Fair

"What's so interesting about this book is it's almost a diary, a journal,  of how the false foundation was built for the war." --Amy Goodman

"Greg Mitchell makes it clear that Iraq is a case study in bad judgment, from the misguided moves of an administration blinded by its zealotry to a complacent media that too often acted as an extension of the White House press office. Read it and weep; read it and get enraged; read it and make sure it doesn't happen again." — Arianna Huffington

"In war truth is too often the first casualty, and it is not just a President or a Secretary of Defense or assorted official spokesmen who do the killing. Our brothers and sisters in the media also participate in the execution. Greg Mitchell has taken that as his lesson and in so doing has done a service to future generations in our business." --Joseph Galloway, military reporter and co-author, We Were Soldiers Once...and Proud

10 Years Ago: When MTV Banned the B-52s

I'd forgotten about this but surely we must mark this date, ten years ago today, when MTV, less than a week into the U.S.-Brit invasion of Iraq, banned the playing of any music videos with "war" lyrics or images--and the entire catalog of the B-52s.  Neil Strauss reported at the time for the NYT:  "Though images of war are dominating television screens, one channel is not having it. The day after the war in Iraq started, a memo was distributed through the offices of MTV Europe by its broadcast standards department. In the memo, Mark Sunderland, one of the department's managers, recommends that music videos depicting ''war, soldiers, war planes, bombs, missiles, riots and social unrest, executions'' and ''other obviously sensitive material'' not be shown on MTV in Britain and elsewhere in Europe until further notice.

The memo cites explicit examples. These include videos that relate directly to the war in Iraq, like ''Boom!'' by System of a Down; videos with bombs exploding, like Billy Idol's ''Hot in the City''; videos with war scenes, like Radiohead's ''Lucky''; and even Aerosmith's ''Don't Want to Miss a Thing,'' which has scenes from the action movie ''Armageddon.''

Taking further cautionary measures, the memo goes on to advise against showing videos in which lyrics, song titles or even band names allude to war, bombs or other ''sensitive words.'' It mentions the songs ''B.O.B (Bombs Over Baghdad)'' by Outkast; ''You, Me and World War Three'' by Gavin Friday; and anything by the B-52's.

''I guess MTV doesn't have a research department, because from Day 1 we've said in interviews that our name is a slang term for the bouffant hairdo Kate and Cindy used to wear -- nothing to do with bombers, '' said Fred Schneider of the B-52's, referring to fellow band members. Oddly, the memo also mentions ''Invasion'' by Radiohead, although a spokesman for the band said he was unaware of any song by the group with that title.

Greg Mitchell's book "So Wrong For So Long," on the media and the Iraq war, was published today in an updated edition and for the first time as an e-book, with preface by Bruce Springsteen.   

Ten Years Ago: Already Media Hype on Iraq Invasion Apparent

On this day in 2003, we were just five days into the invasion of Iraq, which was being roundly hailed and glorified by TV and the press, with questioning voices shut out.  Actually, also on this day, the NYT ran a couple of strong pieces that noted this.  Book critic Michiko Kakutani did double duty, with acolumn noting the cheerleading and all the movie comparisons:  "There is an element of this inability on the part of eyewitnesses to the war, but there is also an element of willful sensationalism and sentimentality on the part of producers who want to keep viewers from switching channels."

And Lucian Truscott IV, the former West Point man, observed:

The Pentagon may have been dragged kicking and screaming into its current embrace of the news media. But it is making the most of it. Planners must have contemplated advances in media technology and decided that if they can't control the press, they may as well use it.

And make no mistake: the news media are being used -- in more ways than they realize. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first announced that reporters would be welcome in the trenches, members of the media were suspicious. After all, this was the same Pentagon that kept journalists far from the front lines during the Persian Gulf war.

Yet from reporters inhaling the exhaust of infantry units to bleary-eyed New York anchors spellbound by squads of generals analyzing the data stream, the news media have marched practically in lock step with the military.

Not since the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan has an administration been so adept at managing information and manipulating images. In Iraq, the Bush administration has beaten the press at its own game. It has turned the media into a weapon of war, using the information it provides to harass and intimidate the Iraqi military leadership.

Greg Mitchell's book "So Wrong For So Long," on the media and the Iraq war, was published today in an updated edition and for the first time as an e-book, with preface by Bruce Springsteen.   

Update on 'Wash Post' vs. Mitchell vs. 'Wash Post'

Fun:  Charles P. Pierce covers uproar over the Post killing my piece and running media "didn't fail" on Iraq piece.  My new Nation piece.   Huff Post still has it atop its main Media page under banner headline, WRONG AGAIN.  I think they are referring to the Post.   Here's excerpt from Pierce:

Here's my broader analytical point -- everyone associated with The Washington Post editorial page -- and a lot of the executives on the news side, especially the ones that buried Walter Pincus's great work back on A13 -- are complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and they should all have their heads shaved, the phrase "I fcked up the world" tattooed on their scalps, and sent off to work in the wards at Walter Reed until they collapse from exhaustion. My insights are fairly well summed up by the phrase, "Shut the fck up forever."

We Should Have Known

If you've never heard:  Once-banned Phil Spector song, "He Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss)." 

Apparently the 'Post' Did Not 'Fail' in Covering Powell's Fateful U.N. Speech

In the wake of the major flap today over the Washington Post killing my article and running Paul Farhi's piece claiming the media "didn't fail" on Iraq, I thought it might be amusing to re-visit the paper's coveage of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in February 2003.  This is drawn from my new book on media malpractice and the war.

The Washington Post echoed others who found Powell's evidence irrefutable.  An editorial in the paper judged that “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. ... Mr. Powell's evidence, including satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was overwhelming."
 
Here’s the Post’s Jim Hoagland:  "Colin Powell did more than present the world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq's secret weapons and terrorism programs yesterday. He also exposed the enduring bad faith of several key members of the U.N. Security Council when it comes to Iraq and its 'web of lies,' in Powell's phrase. ... To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don't believe that. Today, neither should you."
 
That paper's liberal columnist, Mary McGrory, wrote that Powell "persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince." She even likened the Powell report to the day John Dean "unloaded" on Nixon in the Watergate hearings.   Another liberal at that paper, Richard Cohen, declared that Powell's testimony "had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”

George Will suggested that Powell's speech would "change all minds open to evidence."
   

That Piece Killed by the 'Post'

Due to "popular demand," based on my post last night, I'm publishing below the assigned Outlook piece that I submitted to the Washington Post on  Thursday.   I see that the Post is now defending killing the piece because it didn't offer sufficient "broader analytical points or insights."  I'll let you decide if that's true and why they might have rejected it. 

The original appeared almost word-for-word at The Nation this weekend (there I added a reference to Bob Woodward and to Bob Simon).   I had absolutely no plans to even mention that the piece was killed until late last night when I saw that Paul Farhi of the Post had written for Outlook a piece claiming that the media "didn't fail" in the run-up to the Iraq war.   That inspired me to write the post last night which has proved quite popular.

Here's the original piece as submitted.  For much more, see my new e-book.
***

For awhile, back in 2003, Iraq meant never having to say you’re sorry.  The spring offensive had produced a victory in less than three weeks, with a relatively low American and Iraqi civilian death toll.  Saddam fled and George W. Bush and his team drew overwhelming praise, at least here at home.

But wait.  Where were the crowds greeting us as “liberators”?  Why were the Iraqis now shooting at each other--and blowing up our soldiers?  And where were those WMDs, bio-chem labs, and nuclear materials?  Most Americans still backed the invasion, so it still too early for mea culpas--it was more “my sad” than “my bad.”
-
By 2004 it was clear that Saddam’s WMDs would never be found, but with another election season at hand, sorry was still the hardest word.  But a few very limited glimmers of accountability began to appear.  So let’s begin our catalog of the art of mea culpa and Iraq here.

PLAUSIBLE  DENIABILITY   President Bush and many others--including scores of Democrats--who once claimed “slam dunk” evidence  on Iraq’s WMDs now admitted that this intelligence was more below-average than Mensa.  But don’t blame them!  They simply had been misled.  Judith Miller of The New York Times, perhaps the prime fabulist in the run-up to war, explained that she was only as good as her sources--her sources having names like “Curveball” and “Red Cap Guy.”

But the news media, which for the most part had swallowed whole the WMD claims, was not facing re-election, so some self-criticism, at least of the “mistakes-were-made” variety came easier. 

THE MINI-CULPA   This phrase was coined by Jack Shafer of Slate after The New York Times published an “editors’ note” in May 2004, admitting it had publishing a few “problematic articles” (it didn’t mention any authors) on Iraqi WMDs, but pointing out it was “taken in” like most in the Bush administration.  Unlike the Times, Washington Post editors three months later did not produce their own explanation but allowed chief media reporter Howard Kurtz to write a lengthy critique.  Editors and reporters admitted they had often performed poorly but offered one excuse after another, with phrases such as "always easy in hindsight," "editing difficulties," "communication problems"  and "there is limited space on Page 1."    One top reporter said, “We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power. “ 

STONEWALLING   As years passed, the carnage in Iraq intensified but accepting blame for this in America was still pretty much AWOL.   President Bush and Vice President Cheney said that even if the WMD threat was bogus, they’d still do it again.  Reason:  They’d deposed a “dictator”--and would you rather have Saddam still in power?

Now let’s flash forward to this past two weeks, when Iraq (remember Iraq?) re-emerged in the news and opinion sections. But anyone who expected that hair shirts would come into fashion must have been sadly disappointed.  The “mea culpas” would not be “maxima.”  First, those who accepted some blame.

LIMITED HANGOUT STRATEGY  David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, wrote well over a thousand words at the Daily Beast describing multiple reasons for promoting the war before very briefly concluding, “Those of us who were involved—in whatever way—bear the responsibility.”  While adding: “I could have set myself on fire in protest on the White House lawn and the war would have proceeded without me.”   Jonathan Chait at New York offered regrets for backing the war but defended believing in Saddam’s WMD and recalled that “supporting the war was cool and a sign of seriousness.”  And: “The people demanding apologies today will find themselves being asked to supply apologies of their own tomorrow.”

YOUNG AND DUMBER Ezra Klein apologized in a Bloomberg column, at great length,  for supporting the war--when he was eighteen, and “young and dumb.” Charles P. Pierce at Esquire replied, “It is encouraging that he no longer believes in fairy tales.”

MEA (AND A LOT OF OTHERS) CULPA   Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, wrote at Foreign Policy: “It never occurred to me or anyone else I was working with, and no one from the intelligence community or anyplace else ever came in and said, ‘What if Saddam is doing all this deception because he actually got rid of the WMD and he doesn’t want the Iranians to know?’ Now, somebody should have asked that question. I should have asked that question. Nobody did.”

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK   Thomas Friedman, famous author and New York Times columnist, admitted that the U.S. had “paid too high a price” for the 2003 invasion (which he supported, but did not now mention)  but, hey, there was still a decent chance that good would come from it--if only those ungrateful Iraqis would stop blowing each other up and form a stable democracy.   David Ignatius at the Washington Post offered his regrets but observed that at least “the surge” worked and saved lives (although Rajiv Chandraskaran at the Post calls this a “myth”).

Now for those who accepted little or no blame:

WHO, MEA?   Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy Pentagon chief, in an interview fiercely denied he was the architect of the disaster.  Afterall, “I didn’t meet with him [Bush] very often.”  The New York Times in an editorial pointed fingers at the bad actors who helped get us into the war but somehow did not recognize any “me” in “mess.” (The Washington Post got around this by not publishing an editorial on the subject at all.)   Peter Beinart at The Daily Beast blamed the war on American “hubris” but did not reveal that he (hubristically?) backed the war himself.

THAT’S MY STORY AND I’M STICKING TO IT   Dick Cheney in a new Showtime documentary said he’d do it all again. “I feel very good about it.  If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute.”   Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair concurred.  Donald Rumsfeld tweeted (yes) about “liberating” 25 million Iraqis.  He failed to recall when he said the war would last at most six months.  Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, said that asking if the war was worth it was “not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation.”  

IF WE’D ONLY KNOWN! George Will on ABC: “If in 2003 we’d known what we know now — the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the difficulty of governing and occupying a society in which, once you lop off the regime, you’re going to have a civil war in a sectarian tribal society — the answer I think is obviously no.” 

BLAME IT ON THE HANDLERS   Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, one of the most influential proponents of the war, now says that he had a different war in mind and the occupation was handled incompetently, asserting, “it didn't have to be this bad.”

Greg Mitchell’s “So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq” has just been published in an updated e-book edition.  He is the former editor of Editor & Publisher.

Ten Years Ago: David Brooks, Iraq War Hawk

You'd never know from his writings over the past few years, but New York Times pundit David Brooks was a full-throated hawk for the tragic U.S. invasion of Iraq and swallowed all of the Bush administration claims  about WMD whole.   He attempted to muddy the waters, long ago, after WMD were not found and the "liberation" proved to be a disaster by blaming the post-invasion disaster all on Rumsfeld, perhaps figuring that if he became known as a war critic folks would forget that he'd promoted the conflict from the beginning.  Not a chance, in my case.   Brooks, meet elephant.  (And see my new e-book, just out this week, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits and the President Failed on Iraq.)

Here's an excerpt from a column he wrote  at his then-home, The Weekly Standard, March 10, 2003:

The American commentariat is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills.

Meanwhile, among the smart set, Hamlet-like indecision has become the intellectual fashion. The liberal columnist E. J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post that he is uncomfortable with the pro and antiwar camps. He praised the doubters and raised his colors on behalf of ‘heroic ambivalence.’ The New York Times, venturing deep into the territory of self-parody, ran a full-page editorial calling for ‘still more discussion’ on whether or not to go to war.

In certain circles, it is not only important what opinion you hold, but how you hold it. It is important to be seen dancing with complexity, sliding among shades of gray. Any poor rube can come to a simple conclusion--that President Saddam Hussein is a menace who must be disarmed--but the refined ratiocinators want to be seen luxuriating amid the difficulties, donning the jewels of nuance, even to the point of self-paralysis. …

But those who actually have to lead and protect, and actually have to build one step on another, have to bring some questions to a close. Bush gave Saddam time to disarm. Saddam did not. Hence, the issue of whether to disarm him forcibly is settled. The French and the Germans and the domestic critics may keep debating, which is their luxury, but the people who actually make the decisions have moved on to more practical concerns….

From his Weekly Standard column on March 24, two weeks later:

The president has remained resolute. Momentum to liberate Iraq continues to build. The situation has clarified, and history will allow clear judgments about which leaders and which institutions were up to the challenge posed by Saddam and which were not.

Over the past 12 years the United States has sought to disarm or depose Saddam--more forcefully since September 11 than before. Throughout that time, France and Russia have sought to undermine sanctions and fend off the ousting of Saddam. They opposed Clinton's efforts to bomb Saddam, just as they oppose Bush's push for regime change. Through the fog and verbiage, that is the essential confrontation. Events will show who was right, George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac.

What matters, and what ultimately sprang the U.N. trap, is American resolve. The administration simply wouldn't let up. It didn't matter how Hans Blix muddied the waters with his reports on this or that weapons system. Under the U.N. resolutions, it was up to Saddam to disarm, administration officials repeated ad nauseam, and he wasn't doing it. It was and is sheer relentlessness that has driven us to where we are today.

Which is ironic. We are in this situation because the first Bush administration was not relentless in its pursuit of Saddam Hussein. That is a mistake this Bush administration will not repeat.

Greg Mitchell's influential book "So Wrong For So Long," on the media and the Iraq war, was published today in an updated edition and for the first time as an e-book, with preface by Bruce Springsteen.   

Sunday Morning in the Church of Beethoven

My weekly feature.  This week:  the second movement of the revolutionary Eroica symphony.

Sullivan's Trevails

If you've missed: My new profile at The Nation (print and online) of NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan.  Note: Wash Post no longer has an ombud, as of this month.

Double Failure

The Washington Post killed my assigned piece for its Outlook section this weekend which mainly covered media failures re: Iraq and the current refusal to come to grips with that (the subject of my latest book)--yet they ran this misleading, cherry-picking, piece by Paul Farhi claiming the media "didn't fail."  I love the line about the Post in March 2003 carrying some skeptical pieces just days before the war started: "Perhaps it was too late by then. But this doesn’t sound like failure."

Here's my rejected piece.  I see that the Post is now defending killing the article because it didn't offer sufficient "broader analytical points or insights."  I'll let you consider if that's true and why they might have rejected it. 

Now let's revisit my recent posts here on when probe in the Post itself by Howard Kurtz in 2004 showed that it failed big time.  For one thing, Kurtz tallied more than 140 front-page Post stories "that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq"--with all but a few of those questioning the evidence buried inside.  Editors there killed, delayed or buried key pieces by Ricks, Walter Pincus, Dana Priest and others.  The Post's David Ignatius went so far as offering an apology to readers this week for his own failures.  Also consider Bob Woodward's reflections here and here.   He admitted he had become a willing part of the the "groupthink" that accepted faulty intelligence on the WMDs.

Woodward, shaming himself and his paper, once said it was risky for journalists to write anything that might look silly if WMD were ultimately found in Iraq.  Rather than look silly, they greased the path to war.   “There was an attitude among editors: Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all the contrary stuff?" admitted the Post's Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks in 2004.  And this classic from a top reporter, Karen DeYoung:  “We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power.“  See my review, at the time, of how the Post fell (hook, line, and sinker) for Colin Powell's fateful U.N. speech--and mocked critics.  Not a "fail"?

In Farhi's piece, Len Downie, the longtime Post editor, is still claiming, with a shrug, hey, we couldn't have slowed or halted the war anyway.  Farhi agrees with this.  Nothing to see here, move along.

Kurtz last week called the media failure on Iraq the most egregious in "modern times," which echoes my book.  This week neither the Post nor The New York Times published an editorial admitting any shortcomings in their Iraq coverage.   Back in 2003, the Times at least called for caution in invading Iraq, in editorials.  On the other hand, as Bill Moyers pointed out, in the six months leading up to the U.S. attack on the Iraq, the Post "editorialized in favor of the war at least 27 times."

Greg Mitchell's book "So Wrong For So Long," on media misconduct and the Iraq war, was published this month in an updated edition and for the first time as an e-book, with preface by Bruce Springsteen. 

The Real Phil

Amazingly bizarre Phil Spector appearance with Merv Griffin in 1965, complete with LSD reference, a shockingly young Richard Pryor (who sort of sings), Wally Cox, Eartha Kitt, some gun talk,  and more.  Audience boos.  Eartha lectures him, quoting Socrates.  Phil quotes Dylan, then says, "I'm not Walt Disney." BTW, yes I still have copy of angry nutty letter Phil sent me in '70s when I was at Crawdaddy--signed in crayon.

Amazing LBJ Tapes Revealed

At long last the final White House tapes from the Johnson years are released and they cover his final year in office, 1968--and as the BBC reports, there are several shockers. 

One key story is not really new--that Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks, although here we learned that LBJ considered this "treason" and that Nixon had "blood on his hands." But how about this new thing?  When Johnson saw the violence outside the Chicago convention in 1968 (yes, I was there) he called Mayor Daley, congratulated him on his crackdown--and said he wanted to get back in the race for President and would even fly to Chicago to claim the crown!  Daley told him he could swing the party to him, but LBJ finally pulled back when the Secret Service could not guarantee his safety.   Humphrey got the nod and then lost to the "treasonous" Tricky Dick.

50 Years Ago Today, Still: Who Killed Davey Moore?

Cool story from L.A. Review of Books, about death of boxer who inspired Dylan protest song.  The entire fight here.

What a Planet!

Amazing time-lapse video of Earth from Int'l Space Station.  See if you can pick out your continent or city.


Time-Lapse | Earth from Bruce W. Berry Jr on Vimeo.

Taking the 'Mea' Out of the 'Mea Culpa' on Iraq

My new piece at The Nation reviews the good, the bad and the ugly in this week's (b)lame game.

Obama, Ono and John

The president, appreciative of Yoko Ono's efforts to curb gun violence, RTed her message and photo of John Lennon's blood-stained glasses.   Harry Reid take note.  UPDATE: Yoko explains why she did it in NYT story.

When Bill Moyers Probed Media and Iraq

Six years ago--that is, four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq--the first major TV special hitting the press performance appeared.   No surprise, it came from Bill Moyers in April 2007.   Here's how I wrote ahout it at the time, as drawn from my new e-book on media malpractice and the war, which, by the way, was hailed by Moyers. 
****

The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in  its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear on April 25, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called "Buying the War," which marks the return of "Bill Moyers Journal."  While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again -- yet Moyers points out, "the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses."

Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, "The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should've all been doing that."

At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.  But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, "I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war. We didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way."                                                                

Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to "dig deeper," and he replies, "No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas, I don't think we followed up on this." Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a "softer" way, explaining to Moyers: "I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light – if that doesn't seem ridiculous."

Moyers replies: "Going to war, almost light."

Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, "We didn't question our sources enough." But why? Isaacson notes there was "almost a patriotism police" after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"

Moyers then mentions that Isaacson had sent a memo to staff, leaked to the Washington Post, in which he declared, "It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan" and ordered them to balance any such images with reminders of 9/11. Moyers also asserts that editors at the Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald received an order from above, "Do not use photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties. Our sister paper has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening emails."

Walter Pincus of the Washington Post explains that even at his paper reporters "do worry about sort of getting out ahead of something." But Moyers gives credit to my old friend,  Charles J. Hanley of The Associated Press,  for trying, in vain, to draw more attention to United Nations inspectors failing to find WMD in early 2003.

The disgraceful press reaction to Colin Powell's presentation at the United Nations seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student's thesis, downloaded from the Web -- with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with "plagiarism."

Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have "two conservatives for every liberal." Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue's firing that claimed he "presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Moyers also throws some stats around: In the year before the invasion William Safire (who predicted a "quick war" with Iraqis cheering their liberators) wrote "a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war." The Washington Post carried at least 140 front-page stories in that same period making the administration's case for attack. In the six months leading to the invasion the Post would "editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times."

Of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news in the six months before the war, almost all could be traced back to sources solely in the White House, Pentagon or State Dept., Moyers tells Russert, who offers no coherent reply.

The program closes on a sad note, with Moyers pointing out that "so many of the advocates and apologists for the war are still flourishing in the media." He then runs a pre-war clip of President Bush declaring, "We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Then Moyers explains: "The man who came up with it was Michael Gerson, President Bush's top speechwriter.

"He has left the White House and has been hired by the Washington Post as a columnist."

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to Bradley Manning’s hearing last month. 

Pepper Spray Torture--in the USA

Amazing story today out of Maine, where the Portland daily paper has published an account of a prisoner being pepper-sprayed by prison staffers in June 2012--despite already being restrained in a chair.  And: They have the two-hour video to prove it.  And:  They have posted the entire video on their site.   Now the law wants to find out how they got the leak.  This goes way beyond "don't taze me, bro."  See key excerpt below.

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of his acclaimed book on Iraq and the media,  "So Wrong for So Long", includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to this month.  

Back on the Beast Coast

Home from L.A. --only 30 degrees colder in NY.   Snow on the tround.  Favorite L.A. store name spotted on trip: "World of Leggings."  Light posting continues for a bit, though, as I have story due this afternoon.  My new Nation piece on Chris Hedges ten years ago predicting pretty much what would go wrong in Iraq--in the streets and with the media. 

Sandy Hook Outrage Comes to Nothing

And you probably heard about Michael Moore's rant vs. Harry Reid last night on Piers Morgan show.

That 'NYT' Mini-Culpa On Iraq: Updated

UPDATE:  The 10th anniversary editorial from the Times points fingers at everyone--but the Times.  Read it and weep. Disgraceful.  To cite just one example: They rip Bush team for hyping "a nuclear arsenal that did not exist"--but do not mention that they did so in collaboration with NYT reporters.

Earlier: For the past few days I've been spotlighting the high media crimes and misdemeanors committed in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, almost exactly ten years ago, featuring "treasured" journos such as David Brooks and Bob Woodward or even newspapers as a whole (Washington Post).   But it's the NYT and Judith Miller, among others, who will truly live in infamy--partly because of the paper's outsized (perceived) influence.

It's instructive to review what happened when the paper belatedly owned up to (some) of its misdeeds, in May 2004, more than a year after its misconduct.  Jack Shafer famously called it a "mini-culpa."  Bill Keller had replaced Howell Raines as executive editor but Judy Miller (above) was still on board.  Jill Abramson now has the top job and Keller writes a column.  Michael Gordon is still a star reporter at the paper.   Miller, naturally, toils at Fox News.

The following is excerpted from my book, which was published this week in an updated, expanded e-book edition, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the Media--Failed on Iraq.
*

After months of criticism of The New York Times' coverage of WMDS and the run-up to the war in Iraq -- mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller -- the paper's editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was "past time" they do so.     While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, this low-key but scathing self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake.

Today's critique is, in its own way, as devastating as last year's front-page corrective on Jayson Blair, though not nearly as long. Nowhere in it, however, does the name of Judith Miller appear. The editors claim that the "problematic articles varied in authorship" and point out that while critics have "focused blame on individual reporters ... the problem was more complicated."

Yet, even in the Times' own view, Miller was the main culprit, though they seem reluctant, or ashamed, to say so. This is clear in analyzing today's critique. The editors single out six articles as being especially unfortunate, and Judith Miller had a hand in four of them: writing two on her own, co-authoring the other two with Michael Gordon. The only two non-Miller pieces were the earliest in the chronology, and they barely receive mention.

While refusing to name Miller, the Times' critique plainly and persistently finds fault. In referring to one of the bogus Miller pieces, the editors explain, "it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in." Then, just as tellingly, they add: "And until now we have not reported that to our readers."  No kidding.

The editors observe that administration officials now acknowledge "they sometimes fell for misinformation" from exile sources.  So they note, did many news organizations, adding, "in particular, this one," an amazing admission.

Then consider this: "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

Yet nowhere does the Times suggest that it is penalizing any editors or reporters in any way.

One of the false Miller and Gordon stories (touting the now-famous "aluminum tubes") did contain a few qualifiers, but they were "buried deep." When the pair followed up five days later they did report some misgivings by others, but these too "appeared deep in the article." When the Times finally gave "full voice" to skeptics the challenge was reported on Page A 10, but "it might well have belonged on Page A 1."

Of course, the same could be said of their note today --which also falls on Page A 10.

Another Miller article, from April 21, 2003, that featured an Iraqi scientist (who later turned out to be an intelligence officer), seemed to go out of its way to provide what the Times calls "the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion." But in hindsight there was just one problem: "The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims."

Yet the critique ends on a hopeful note: "We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight."

But Executive Editor Bill Keller continued to defend the editors' note, and blamed "overwrought" critics for overreacting to the Times' WMD coverage. Asked why he finally published the editors' note, Keller (quoted in The Washington Post) replied: "Mainly because it was a distraction. This buzz about our coverage had become a kind of conventional wisdom, much of it overwrought and misinformed."

With his managing editor, Jill Abramson, he penned a memo to staffers explaining that the critique in the paper was “not an attempt to find a scapegoat or to blame reporters for not knowing then what we know now.”  So: Lesson learned?  Or not?

The problem of course was that certain reporters ignored, or only paid lip service to, evidence that “we know now” but was often (as the Knight Ridder reporters proved) also available then.

Welcome From L.A.

Still out on the left coast so light posting continues.  With 10th anniversary of launch of criminal war in Iraq, will re-post a few things and add some new ones.  

Media Learned Lessons from Blowing Iraq Coverage?

Great piece by Mike Calderone today at Huff Post on lessons learned (or not) by media re: Iraq war.   Interviews journos, including yours truly, and cites my book as one of two key ones on media malpractice and the war. 

The Soldier Who Killed Herself After Refusing to Take Part in Torture

The blood on the hands of Bush, Cheney and so many others (including certain members of the media) in the Iraq war comes not just from soldiers and civilians killed in action but the many, many soldier suicides, in the war zone and back at home.   For years I wrote about them almost every week.  But one of the most most wrenching stories concerned Spc. Alyssa Peterson, 27.  She was one of the first female soldiers to die in that conflict.  It was an unusually tough loss for U.S. forces there, as she was one of the few Arabic-speaking interrogators. She had been killed by a bullet from a rifle.  A daily occurrence for U.S. soldiers in Iraq then, but in this case the rifle was her own.

She had committed suicide after refusing to take part in torture. Naturally, a cover-up followed.

I was the first national reporter to write about her case, after a local radio newsman uncovered it.  I've updated it since and wherever I write about it the articles draw wide readership and comments.  She was also featured in my new e-book on the war, So Wrong for So Long.  Here's my most recent piece, from The Nation two years ago.  And, unfortunately, the plague of suicides continues to run at records levels in Afghanistan and among war vets here at home.

A History of the "Friedman Unit"

As another bit of bonus coverage for the 10th anniversary of the launch of the criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq, here's my piece, from May 18, 2006, drawn from my new ebook on the war and media, So Wrong for So Long--on the fabled "Friedman Unit," or FU. 
***

For weeks now, liberal bloggers have proposed a new measurement to mark the mildly optimistic, if farfetched,  pronouncements on Iraq coming from  many pundits, Republicans, and White House spokesman:  the 'Friedman Unit' or ‘F.U.’     It equals six months, and is named after famed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a longtime supporter of the war who, for nearly three years, has repeatedly declared that  things would likely turn around there if we just give it another  six months.
  
Friedman Unit has even gained a lengthy entry at Wikipedia.   It calls it a “tongue-in-cheek neologism…. The term has been used in general to describe any pronouncement of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq.”
  
Now the press watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has assembled a full review of Friedman's pronouncements in this vein.  "A review of Friedman's punditry reveals a long series of similar do-or-die dates that never seem to get any closer," said FAIR, which compiled excerpts from Friedman's columns and broadcast remarks. 
   
It  tracks the birth of the Friedman Unit to his Times column on November 30, 2003,
which  held this quote:  "The next six months in Iraq -- which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there -- are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
  
Then, on CBS's "Face the Nation," on Oct. 3, 2004, he declared: "What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
   
Six weeks after that, in the Times, he declared: “Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."

And away we go:

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election -- that's my own feeling -- let alone the presidential one." (NBC's "Meet the Press, " Sept. 25, 2005)

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together." ("Face the Nation, " Dec. 18, 2005)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it -- and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful." (The New York Times, Dec. 21, 2005)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand." (Oprah Winfrey Show, Jan. 23, 2006)

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq." (NBC's "Today," March 2, 2006)

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us." (CNN, April 23, 2006)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months -- probably sooner -- whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out." (MSNBC's "Hardball," May 11, 2006)

Greg Mitchell’s new edition of So Wrong for So Long includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen, a new introduction and a lengthy afterword with updates right up to Bradley Manning’s hearing last month.

When WikiLeaks Released Iraq 'War Logs'

In this special posting, marking the 10th anniversary of launch of criminal Iraq war tomorrow, here is an excerpt from my book, The Age of WikiLeaks, covering the release of the "Iraq War Logs" more than two years ago and reaction.
*

The release of the Iraq documents, some 391,000 in number, was originally set for August.  But a week before that happened, Julian Assange told The Guardian’s David Leigh that he wanted a more diverse group of partners for this round, “and asked that Leigh delay publication to give the other outlets time to prepare programs,” Sarah Ellison would recount in Vanity Fair.
 
Leigh said he’d agree to a six-week delay if Assange handed over so-called “package three,” the biggest leak of all (which would become Cablegate). According to Leigh, Assange said, “You can have package three tonight, but you have to give me a letter signed by the Guardian editor saying you won’t publish package three until I say so.” Leigh agreed.   
   

On October 22, the Iraq War Logs arrived. As with the Afghan logs, WikiLeaks had obviously set a tight embargo time and coordinated the release with the news outlets carefully.   At a press conference in London, Assange said that this “constituted the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.” The 391,000 documents would set a new world record for leaks — the Afghanistan trove held a paltry 77,000 docs — but who was counting? 
 
These military incident and intelligence reports “are used by desk officers in the Pentagon and troops in the field when they make operational plans and prepare briefings on the situation in the war zone,” the New York Times explained. “Most of the reports are routine, even mundane, but many add insights, texture and context to a war that has been waged for nearly nine years.”
 
The Times posted its deep package of “War Logs” stories about 5 p.m. ET.  Arriving about the same time over in London, the Guardian’s coverage focused on shocking updates on civilian deaths in Iraq and the U.S. military’s role in allowing the torture of detainees by Iraqis.     The Times covered those subjects, too, but seemed equally interested in the role of other countries in that war, particularly Iran. 
 
Assange, in a CNN interview, again charged that the U.S. had committed “war crimes.”   Secretary of State Clinton quickly condemned the WikiLeaks move.
 
Getting in on the WikiLeaks action for the first time, Al Jazeera suggested that the real bombshell was the U.S. allowing Iraqis to torture detainees. Documents revealed that U.S. soldiers sent 1300 reports to headquarters with graphic accounts, including a few about detainees beaten to death.  Some U.S. generals wanted our troops to intervene, but Pentagon chiefs disagreed, saying these assaults should only be reported, not stopped.   At a time the U.S. was declaring that no torture was going on, there were 41 reports of such abuse still happening “and yet the U.S. chose to turn its back.”   
 
The New York Times report on the torture angle included this: “The six years of reports include references to the deaths of at least six prisoners in Iraqi custody, most of them in recent years. Beatings, burnings and lashings surfaced in hundreds of reports, giving the impression that such treatment was not an exception. In one case, Americans suspected Iraqi Army officers of cutting off a detainee’s fingers and burning him with acid. Two other cases produced accounts of the executions of bound detainees.

 “And while some abuse cases were investigated by the Americans, most noted in the archive seemed to have been ignored, with the equivalent of an institutional shrug: soldiers told their officers and asked the Iraqis to investigate….That policy was made official in a report dated May 16, 2005, saying that ‘if US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted until directed by HHQ.’ In many cases, the order appeared to allow American soldiers to turn a blind eye to abuse of Iraqis on Iraqis.” 
 
Amnesty International quickly called on the U.S. to investigate how much our commanders knew about Iraqi torture.
 
A top story at the Guardian, meanwhile, opened: “Leaked Pentagon files obtained by the Guardian contain details of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the US-led invasion, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded.
 
“British ministers have repeatedly refused to concede the existence of any official statistics on Iraqi deaths. U.S. General Tommy Franks claimed 'We don't do body counts.' The mass of leaked documents provides the first detailed tally by the U.S. military of Iraqi fatalities. Troops on the ground filed secret field reports over six years of the occupation, purporting to tote up every casualty, military and civilian.
 
“Iraq Body Count, a London-based group that monitors civilian casualties, told the Guardian:  'These logs contain a huge amount of entirely new information regarding casualties. Our analysis so far indicates that they will add 15,000 or more previously unrecorded deaths to the current IBC total. This data should never have been withheld from the public”’  The logs recorded a total of 109,032 violent deaths between 2004 and 2009.
 
Citing a new document,  the Times reported: “According to one particularly painful entry from 2006, an Iraqi wearing a tracksuit was killed by an American sniper who later discovered that the victim was the platoon’s interpreter….The documents...reveal many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians—at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations. Such killings are a central reason Iraqis turned against the American presence in their country, a situation that is now being repeated in Afghanistan.”

However, media interest in the Iraq docs was already fading, similar to what happened after the Collateral Murder and Afghan war releases.   The  editorial page of the hawkish Washington Post (a newspaper once again left out of the WikiLeaks media plan) thundered that “the mass leak, like a dump of documents on Afghanistan in the summer, mainly demonstrates that the truth about Iraq already has been told….. [T]he incidents were extensively reported by Western journalists and by the U.S. military when they occurred.”  This, of course, was true in some cases, nonsense regarding others.
 
Meanwhile, Assange returned to CNN for Larry King’s show, appearing with his new friend Dan Ellsberg.  King decided to bring up the Assange CNN “walk off.”  Assange replied, “We released 400,000 classified documents, the most extraordinary history of a war to have ever been released in our civilization.  Those documents cover 109,000 deaths. That's a serious matter, and it's extraordinarily disrespectful to those people to start conflating the first revelation of that material with any sort of tabloid journalism. And CNN should know better, and I believe does know better than to do that.”
 
Assange said that issues surrounding his personal life and the sex crime case were not proportionate to what had just been revealed in WikiLeaks' cache of Iraq war documents.  “And it is — I mean, CNN should be ashamed of doing that,” he added. “And you, Larry, you actually should be ashamed, as well.”