How the News Media Unquestioningly Disseminated "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Disinformation


A new study by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland provides thorough documentation of how the news media participated in the dissemination of disinformation about Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

In my blog entry dated 3/4/04 promoting attendance at the March 8 Media Ownership Forum at St. John Fisher College, I asserted that the "U.S. mass media ... virtually served as handmaiden to the Administration in the selling of the Iraq War." That statement was based on my impressions of what I had seen in the media. Today, an article in Editor & Publisher called my attention to a study by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland that provides thorough documentation of my impressions.

Both a summary and a full version of the 101-page study are available at the CISSM website.

The following is a direct quote from the Forward to the study:

"The study makes three important observations.

"First, it documents that virtually all of the news coverage accepted without serious question the political formulation "weapons of mass destruction" as a single category of threat. The very extensive objective differences in destructive potential among the various agents included in that category were barely noted if at all.

"Second, the paper analyzes the media's habit of associating mass destruction agents with the phenomenon of terrorism. That is undoubtedly an accurate reflection of common fears, but it is not an accurate representation of established fact. No terrorist organization has yet demonstrated the capacity to perform an act of mass destruction under a strict definition of that term. There is an important difference between common fears, however prudent they might seem, and actionable threat. It is extremely important that those who wield American military power understand the difference. Media coverage did not acknowledge that distinction during the periods examined, and that is an evident defect.

"Third, the paper notes that established operating principles of the American media make it easier for the incumbent President, whoever that might be, to dominate news coverage by setting the terms of public discussion. Journalistic standards that are meant to ensure objectivity and guard against political bias had the effect of insulating the president from informed critical scrutiny. That effect was compounded during the latter periods under review by the mediaХs inclination to amplify what was considered to be patriotic sentiment. As a result, the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires."

I encourage everyone to read the full study.



Posted: Thu - March 11, 2004 at 09:24 AM          

©