US media becoming more sceptical of Bush policy on Iraq

1.00pm

WASHINGTON - The American media are beginning to be more sceptical in reporting on the war in Iraq, with reporters less willing to accept Bush administration pronouncements at their face value, media experts say.

The media were criticised by some anti-war activists a year ago, when President George W Bush invaded Iraq, for failing to ask the tough questions and falling back on blind patriotism.

But after a month of high casualties and new revelations in books by former government officials and by reporter Bob Woodward about the way Bush decided to go to war, the tone has changed, the experts said.

"It's not universal but there is a collective sense that the press is more comfortable criticising Bush's performance as Commander-in-Chief. They were very reluctant to do so for a long time after the 9/11 attacks," Mike McCurry, who was White House press secretary for President Bill Clinton said.

The September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States prompted outrage and the nation rallied around the president.

But the descent of Iraq into bloodshed and chaos and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that Bush cited as main cause for the war have brought a new edge to reporting.

As of Tuesday, US forces had suffered 100 combat deaths in April, making it the deadliest month since the war began.

In his news conference last week, Bush was asked about mistakes he had made, whether he was a poor communicator, whether he had taken the country to war on a series of false premises and whether he should apologise to the country for the September 11 attacks.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has also faced tougher questioning in recent briefings that he did a few weeks ago.

Republican consultant Keith Appell, a strong Bush supporter, said it was natural that the media would focus on the negative when things appeared to be going badly.

"There are a lot of good things going on in Iraq but the most compelling things are negative. Progress takes time and it's not going to happen fast enough to satisfy the networks," he said.

"There are now signs of the press taking the tone of, 'We don't believe anything you tell us any more.' We may not be there yet but we're close," Appell said.

A generation ago, the emergence of that kind of credibility gap was a key factor in eroding popular support for the Vietnam War. The government kept insisting that the war could be won but the media stopped believing it.

The new attitude is reflected in the willingness of some media to publish more painful images. The Seattle Times splashed a photograph of a line of flag-draped coffins of dead US soldiers filling the interior of a giant cargo plane.

The image was shot by a US contractor working at Kuwait International Airport. The Bush administration has banned cameras from covering the arrival of the remains of dead troops arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

University of Delaware journalism professor Ralph Begleiter said the US media tended to pile on the pressure when things were going badly for the president.

"It's pack journalism and it works both ways. When the troops were rushing to Baghdad a year ago, the media celebrated the victory. Now they have the scent of trouble," he said.

Democratic consultant Michael Goldman said it was more that reporters were reacting to events. "Nobody feels that it's necessary to carry the administration's water any more except the die-hard conservative media," he said.

"This was the most tightly-held presidency in history in terms of keeping its secrets and staying on message and manipulating opinion. But now, that vessel is beginning to leak rather seriously," he said.

- REUTERS

Herald Feature: Iraq