Groundhog Day

I caught some of To The Point on NPR yesterday (I believe you can get a podcast of the episode here) in particular, the segment where they were talking about the Bush administration's allegations abotu Iranian weapons. It's really one of the best shows on the radio, so it was no surprise to see that this was a very informative rundown spelling out what, exactly, was being alleged, which elements there was circumstantial evidence for, which elements the evidence was more direct for, what we know and don't know about the organization of the Iranian government, etc.

Still, though, there was a disturbing atmosphere of propaganda in the air. Everything was introduced as "the military claims" or "military intelligence claims," never "the Bush administration claims" even though you'd have to be pretty foolish not to see this as an administration initiative. The wider context of Iran policy debates was missing in action. Instead, there were just some claims; claims coming from the military; claims that might be wrong in some respect, but were clearly issued in good faith. It's a pretty bad scene. You might think that having gone through this exact same scenario a few years ago something would have been learned. Instead what mostly seems to have been learned is that the administration can't afford to have its own claims attributed to itself and so wants to have them attributed to military intelligence.

Comments

the administration knows what it wants, so it learns and adapts how to sell it, selling policies being the core competency of the right-wing.

it's not clear to me anymore what the core competency of the media wrt to national politics and national security is: willful ignorance, perhaps?

Posted by howard | February 13, 2007 9:31 AM

Everything was introduced as "the military claims" or "military intelligence claims," never "the Bush administration claims" even though you'd have to be pretty foolish not to see this as an administration initiative.

I believe the NY Times explained today that's because the people who did the briefings were career military intelligence people - not political appointees. So while the career intelligence people are part of the administration, you can't characterize them as part of an administration political initiative.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2007 9:43 AM

KCRW is the finest radio station on the planet. Have you sampled their music programming, Matt? It's built in to iTunes' "Radio" listings. I particularly recommend "Morning Becomes Eclectic" (indie pop and the like) and "Metropolis" (downbeat electronica).

Posted by FMguru | February 13, 2007 9:57 AM

So while the career intelligence people are part of the administration, you can't characterize them as part of an administration political initiative.

Why not?

Posted by neil | February 13, 2007 9:57 AM

A career military guy who doesn't simply say, "Yes, sir," when given an order, but rather weighs whether the order was given as part of some "political initiative" before folowing it?

Now I've seen everything.

Posted by keatssycamore | February 13, 2007 10:06 AM

"To the Point" isn't NPR; it's a Public Radio International show. As NPR gets blander -- more news in the standard formula, less culture -- it's good to keep track of who is doing what show.

Posted by Cthomas | February 13, 2007 10:14 AM

I caught part of this show yesterday and it galvanized a point that had long been tickling my brain. This looks exactly like the runup to the Iraq war. I am beyond the point of thinking it will be halted before we are in Iran. So I spend my time now just trying to figure out how exactly I am going to respond when that happens.

Posted by socratic_me | February 13, 2007 10:26 AM

"Propaganda" -- there's a word I wish media people were more willing to use freely. I caught a brief bit of Blitzer the other day, talking with I think John Roberts about the admin's claims about Iran, and both men were visibly searching and hunting for words to use *other* than propaganda. Mostly they called it a "public relations offensive" which is a supremely inadequate substitute.

Posted by Ryan | February 13, 2007 12:33 PM

Of the several things that are really upsetting about all the Iran war talk is that it seems like the media have not lost any of their bad habits from last time around, not at all. It seems like the brutal consequences of the Iraq war, plus the sharp criticism of bloggers, etc (which has been great and getting constantly better, imo) does not still cross the threshold of what it will take to change media behavior. What do we have to do?

Although To the Point can be good, Warren Olney is one of the worst offenders in my view of "World is flat: the controversy" type of commentary. He constantly has the most ridiculous representatives of right-wing looney thought on the show and treats them seriously, and if there's any heavy economic or policy talk on the show, he can't stop shaking his head and regretting how very confusing it all is. Instead of, say, making it less confusing.

Posted by cerebrocrat | February 13, 2007 1:04 PM

Somewhat OT, but why, given that the White House has "confirmed" what those anonymous briefers told journalists in Baghdad about weapons coming in from Iran, are those briefers still being kept anonymous? Are the people who gave the press the info on the ground to the point where identifying them would jeopardize intelligence gathering (e.g. endanger the lives of their contacts or cause people to clam up when talking to them)? Or is the admin being secretive for its own sake? Or is something else up?

Posted by DAS | February 13, 2007 1:14 PM

“…The wider context of Iran policy debates was missing in action. Instead, there were just some claims; claims coming from the military; claims that might be wrong in some respect, but were clearly issued in good faith…”

I would immediately dispute your contention that the claims were issued in good faith. The refusal to allow press to bring cameras, recorders and cell phones to the briefing, the demand for complete anonymity of an alleged “defense analyst” and “weapons expert” who made blind claims with no means of fact checking their competence, and the distribution of a series of photos containing items that were patently not of Iranian manufacture seem to expose the briefing for what It was: another Bush administration PR extravaganza, built upon lies and misdirection.

Posted by Lurch | February 13, 2007 8:06 PM