Reporter Apologizes for Iraq Coverage

[diamond geezer]

link (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545)

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

[numediaman]

Fine, but this is what the response to the apology was:
Carter Swart of Crescent City, Calif.: "Another leftist journalist siding with the enemy. Ho hum."

Cornelius Geary, CEO, Geary Communications, Brookfield, Wis.: "Please tell Rick Mercier that the Kurds of Halabja might have a different opinion on whether or not Saddam had WMD. The point is we did not know what Saddam had, he was a sworn U.S. enemy who did not live up to his obligations under 17 U.N resolutions. Bottom line, Saddam was a threat, and post 9/11 he needed to be dealt with. End of story."

Wray R. Johnson, Professor of Strategic Studies, Command and Staff College, Marine Corps University, Fredericksburg, Va.: "As a subscriber to the Free Lance-Star, I had to respond. Rick Mercier is being disingenuous. From the beginning Mercier has excoriated the president, the war on terrorism, and the war on Iraq. So what and who is he apologizing for? Certainly not those of us who found the press's role in recent events to be just the opposite of what Mercier claims."

Rodney White, Charlestown, W.Va.: "He's sorry. He's sorry that American and British soldiers ended a reign of terror? He's sorry a source of WMDs is no more? Is he sorry the Bush administration might succeed in nation building, something the Clinton crowd never ever got right? You are damn right he is sorry. He is just the kind of sorry fool The New York Times and its ilk are looking for. I am so, so glad I do not work for the so-called popular press any more."

Peter Price, San Diego: "The Gaul of Rick Mercier."

R. F. Guardiani of Sewickley, Pa.: "If Rick Mercier is so sorry, why doesn't he resign? Then he would prove he was really sorry and not just another Bush-hater who wants to grandstand."

Jim Chandler of McKenzie, Tenn.: "Yeah, it's a damned shame we didn't leave Saddam alone, so he could still be running people through shredding machines and cutting out tongues. You will never get it."

Robert Welcher, Cow Creek, Texas: "They should be apologizing for the 12 years of misinformation the media provided from Iraq after the first Gulf War. The people in the press have no shame, no guilt and no remorse. Most are cold-blooded opportunists with nothing worthwhile to say."


Can't fool the American people -- they know there are WMDs in Iraq. That's why Bush will win in a landslide. Bushies don't want to know.

[zimv20]

Can't fool the American people -- they know there are WMDs in Iraq.
and that's the totally ridiculous thing. there are only two sources of information -- the press and the WH. if one were to accept all claims on faith and not be skeptical, then the only conclusion could be that the weapons existed.

but what's going on now that the evidence, and at times even the WH, say differently? people are still willing to believe the WMD claims. is it because people don't like changing positions? or is there something else going on? are the american people simply bellicose? is it easier to focus on something like "a man of pure evil" than the complicated problems facing the US society at home?

i think americans, for the most part, like their world-views simple: saddam was bad, kerry is liberal, bush is a strong leader. gays can go **** themselves (pun not really intended), and as long as *i've* got health insurance, you lazy commie bastards can ****. guns good, laws bad.

[wwworry]

IF WHAT Wray R. Johnson (IN THE REPLIES) wrote is true I would have to agree with him. Rick Mercier is issuing a funny sort of apology. We have access to the same media that informed us all along that the presidents claims were dubious. However the major TV networks, in their 2 minute max reports did do us a disservice and continue to do so every day on every issue.

What's worries me is the attitude that "we were right even if we were wrong" that pervades some of the letters. You can't just feed people a line of crap and get away with it. That's wrong.