TUESDAY'S LETTERS: Deconstructing Rumsfeld's 'Attack' on the Press

By: E&P Staff Was there substance in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "attack" on press coverage of Iraq yesterday? These questions and more in today's letters. If you have your own questions or feel like offering some answers, e-mail our letters inbox.

***

Ethical Standards Survey

Re: Gallup: Journalists, Politicians, Still Far Down in 'Ethical' Standings

Perhaps the real story is what kind of a society we have. People don't like to buy cars, or get auto repairs, or deal with HMOs. The public views these professions as populated by people who will screw them.

As for journalists, a good part of the public's mistrust is the result of the negative attacks by the right in particular. But some of it is deserved. You have your Millers and Woodwards. Now that people access the Internet more easily, they've come to realize that the media censors the news, mostly through omission.

When they watch members of the media participating in pseudo news programs and yell-a-thons, they lose respect for them. And more and more interview shows follow the Larry King style of soft balls and no follow-up.

And the media is failing to protect its own. Look at what happened to Gary Webb. The big three, NYT, LAT, and WP all attacked him, to their everlasting shame. What does that tell reporters and editors? Reporters are killed and jailed in Iraq and in Palestine (by the Israelis) and there is little outcry.

And if a reporter in Iraq does a good job the administration will successfully get that person removed (the last two reports I saw by Logan of CBS directly contradicted Bush, I don't expect to see this fine reporter very often).

And of course the media allows people such as Ann Coulter air and print time. There seems to be a belief that as long as it is opinion it's all right to allow a columnist to tell lies and make outrageous claims. There is no common sense standard of the commentary being at least approximately true.

I had an uncle that was a reporter for local news and the police beat. He thought it was the greatest job in the world and one of great responsibility. So I still rate you higher than politicians and funeral directors (NYT and WP excepted).

Bob Reynolds
Orange Park, Fla.

***

Rumsfeld Takes the Gloves Off

Re: Rumsfeld Attacks Press on Iraq Coverage

Before you dismiss this letter as a product of another angry right winger "attack," let me state that I voted Democrat in three of the last four presidential elections. And, while I voted for President Bush in the last one, I have been a severe critic of his Iraq invasion, before, during and after, the same took place.

Now to the issue at hand: Your comments on the above reference article seem to support Mr. Rumsfeld's "attack."

First, you appear to have missed the point of Mr. Rumsfeld "attack," which is his perception (or the Administration's) that news coverage of the war is unfair. Instead of addressing his "comments" and providing examples of how he was wrong, you proceeded to attack his "attack" by recurring to emotion jerkers, such as the always reliable comparison to Nixon and trying to scare us by raising the specter of "history about to repeat itself." This is in par with Candidate Kerry's scaring of seniors with the loss of Medicare... ridiculous!

Your follow up punch was to compare Rumsfeld's "attack" with the despicable actions of paying to publish "pro American," not lies, news stories in Iraq. Again, missing the point of Mr. Rumsfeld's speech.

As time goes on, more and more people like me are beginning to see that the Administration's charges of unfair coverage might have some substance to it.

Thus, here is the quandary. At a time when you will expect those who oppose the war to strengthen their convictions, your coverage is giving us pause, serious pause, about your real intentions.

Ramon V. Martinez
Coral Gables, Fla.

***

Your very first sentence starts:

"When public support for the Vietnam War sank..."

You start your article by comparing Iraq to Vietnam. This is exactly Rumsfeld's point.

Why are you comparing Iraq to Vietnam? I *think* it's because you guys made us lose Vietnam, and you liked that, so you're trying again. That's the only comparison.

Why not talk about the MSM blackout of Dean's comments yesterday?

Can you imagine if bin Laden, or Zarqawi, said in public, "you know, we can't win this war against the Americans. We need to withdraw from Iraq."?

That's what Dean said yesterday about the war... we can't win.

Barely a peep from you folks.

Point made.

Arthur Gary

***

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was expressing the sentiments of the majority of the U.S. public when he defined the news media as an enemy to U.S. efforts and personnel in Iraq.

In my opinion, the media are becoming the main enemy in this conflict. But one of the prices you pay in a wartime democracy is having frivolous pansies -- who would not know a trigger from a bayonet lug -- write and pontificate on war from a vantage point of safety.

Brad Silliman
Savannah, Tenn.

***

City News RIP

Re: 'Chicago Tribune' Shutting Down Successor of Legendary City News Bureau

In Europe, 124 years of operation is just getting started. In America it's a long run and ready to be put to pasture. Lets face it: if it doesn't make tons of money, it's killed. That's the American way! Heaven forbid it catches on, but unfortunately is has. It certainly has the old Chinese Ying & Yang -- to paraphrase -- for a given good, there is a given bad. America has the extremes.

City News rest in peace...from an old City News Kid.

Tom Yanul
Chicago, Ill.

***

Another Letter from Martinez

Re: Indy Star' Columnist Admits She Was Hoodwinked By Prof

Your article is very revealing and applicable, and reconfirms what I have believed all along: "The Common Denominator is Laziness."

The Republicans have been going bonkers all summer and fall over the Main Stream Media repeating lies about President Bush. Lies which they claim are repeated because of the evil intentions and partisanship of the MSM. But is it?

I am sure that in some case this is true. But in many, many others, it is laziness. The unwillingness of reporters to check the facts and accept what is being repeated, by their friends and "trusted organizations," as fact. Ms. Holladay is but one more lamentable example.

Ramon V. Martinez
Coral Gables, Fla.