Using more than the usual suspects

Primary sources are essential to journalism. But those primary sources also need to be verified with facts and other supporting information. Reporters writing on Iraq before and during the war have not always done that extra legwork.

Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, is a perfect example. Her stories leading up to the invasion of Iraq said there was enough evidence to remove all doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. She relied on a usual set of sources, whom she trusted and had used in the past. They were the big-time officials of the Bush administration. She had no reason not to use their intelligence at the time, and even less reason not to accept what she learned when she was embedded with the exploitation team Alpha in Iraq.

But what should a journalist accept as fact and what should they question of their sources when several of those higher-ranking officials are telling you the same thing?

A problem that Miller should have been curious about is if the administration was hiding an agenda. In fact they planted these “facts” regarding WMD’s into her reporting and then often referred back to her stories as fact in other interviews with various media, as PBS’ Frontline examined recently in its “News War” program.

Jack Schafer, of Slate Magazine, did a lot of in-depth writing on Miller’s reporting and in an interview on New York Public Radio in 2005 he said, “viewed in today's context, Judith Miller's reporting on weapons of mass destruction from Iraq seemed very much like cheerleading…you can see that her reporting is consistently exaggerated and overplayed the evidence for weapons of mass destruction.”

But Miller is not the only journalist guilty of reporting what might be false information, though she was used as the scapegoat so the media could have someone to blame. And I think it is inappropriate to blame her for reporting falsities. I respect her for standing behind her reporting and explaining where she got her information and why it was not unusual to believe it.

When faced with situations that you cannot be directly involved with and you must rely on others to provide you with information – it can be tough for a journalist to know whom to trust.

I can’t imagine being a reporter in the war zone and trying to make sure I have my facts straight and enough proof from several people to back it up, all the while legitimately worrying about safety. I’m sure it’s easy and less threatening to just repeat what information the military officials are handing out, but as the war wears on people are getting more and more fatigued of the numbers dead story and the car bomb today story. These are still important things that everyone should be informed on, but now is the time to analyze why we are still where we are and what progress, if any has been made.

I see stories come over on the progress the U.S. has made with the security crackdown in Baghdad, with all the major sources as military and political officials. I will see a mention of how there might seem to be peace in Baghdad, yet out of the city there is still an insurgency threatening lives. What should be done with those stories is to go more in-depth about why there is this false sense of victory in Iraq’s capital and the reporters should take a more critical eye at what news is being fed to them instead of just spitting it back out at the readers.

A lot easier said than done, I suppose. And I do respect those who are over there trying to connect the story with those of us back at home.