It's All the Media's Fault

There are two strains of thought right now about media coverage of the war that, not surprisingly, reflect the polarization over the conflict itself.

From the conservative side: The press is antiwar, plays up every little attack in Iraq and accusation of atrocity against U.S. soldiers, and generally portrays the Bush administration as having failed.

From the liberal side: The press is obsessed with Democratic divisions over when and whether to pull out, and will not focus on the Republicans clinging to an unworkable strategy that is costing American lives.

People are so worked up over this war that some are succumbing to a temptation to blame the media for how badly things are going, or for supposedly being unfair to their political party.

And that's just the straight coverage. The challenge for those who work the opinion side of the street is equally urgent. If you support this war, can you argue that more time and more spilled American blood will eventually turn things around? If you are against the war, can you argue that a U.S. pullout won't result in a civil war and terrorist victory?

Andrew Sullivan is still wrestling with this, so I quote his latest post at some length:

"Readers know that I don't support any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This puts me in the excruciating position of supporting a war conducted by an administration whose key players are manifestly incompetent and reckless. This is, I think, also the position of several pro-war Democrats, like Senator Clinton, and many pro-war Republicans, whose complete disgust at the way this administration has handled Iraq is more often expressed in private than public. Unable to access intelligence, forced to rely on news reports, blogs and other sources for information, I don't have an alternative master-plan to win either. I would support an increase in troop levels, a clear-and-hold strategy, a more aggressive military commitment to protect the infrastructure, and the kind of outreach to alienated Sunnis that Maliki and Khalilzad are attempting.

"But as long as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are running the show, I cannot say I am optimistic that such a sane strategy will be employed or that it will succeed. It's like asking Ken Lay to turn Enron back into an ethical, profit-making company. But what else can I do? I agree with John McCain that peremptory withdrawal or a fixed date would amount to surrender to an enemy that seems to be gaining momentum and strength. It would mean a historic betrayal of all those Iraqis who want a better future; and consigning Iraq to a new and more lethal version of the Taliban's Afghanistan. It would put us in a more vulnerable position than we were on September 10, 2001.

"The Democrats, alas, seem hopeless to me. Their ambivalence about the war before and during it makes them seem unreliable stewards of a fight we have no choice but to join. Their flirtation with withdrawal only reinforces this impression. But they do have an opening, if they only had the conviction. If a Democratic candidate emerged who promised to stick to the Iraq war to victory, but conduct it in a more aggresive, ethical and competent way than the current crew, Americans would be more than receptive. Such a position would also help them expose the scandalous incompetence in the White House, while not being vulnerable to charges of defeatism.

"It won't happen, alas. And Rove will ruthlessly exploit the war for partisan gain, as he has from the beginning. He has no scruples. For him, national security is simply part of a political game. I should therefore break the news to my liberal and Democratic readers: Rove is winning this game for now. If you stick to your anti-war position, you are left with hoping for catastrophe, which a great political party should be better than."

"Lapdogs" author Eric Boehlert pounds away at his theme that the media are short-changing the Democrats:

"It's been a head-scratching spectacle this week to watch Democrats in the Senate debate war resolutions that would press the administration to begin bringing troops home--to force the White House to 'submit to Congress its plan for continued redeployment beyond 2006'--and then be depicted in the press as the likely losers in the unfolding political battle. Losers because Democrats are 'divided' (New York Times), 'struggling for consensus' (Washington Post), and 'squabbling among themselves' (Knight Ridder), as opposed to Republicans who appear unified behind Bush's 'stay the course' Iraq policy. (Democrats weak and confused, Republicans strong and resolute. Does the press ever got tired of that manufactured storyline?)