Rules of engagement…
Jack Shafer says The New York Times is changing the rules of journalism by publishing an admittedly censored “scoop” about an Iraqi scientist’s claim that the regime destroyed chemical weapons just before the invasion. Shafer says:
It’s quite a deal when you read the story closely. She agreed not to interview the scientist, visit his home, divulge his identity, write about the MET Alpha for three days, or disclose the composition of the chemicals. And, most pungently, she consented to pre-publication review–oh, hell, let’s call it censorship!–of her story by military officials.
Under these conditions, in my opinion, reporter Judith Miller does not have a story.
UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Bob Somerby says:
According to Miller’s government sources, this unnamed scientist has told them every thing the U.S. government would like you to hear. Saddam did have WMDS…Saddam was tight with al Qaeda…Saddam sent the WMDs off to Syria (translation: Don’t expect that we’ll actually find them). These statements may be perfectly accurate. On the other hand, they may be a pile of pure cant–and they are currently being bruited wherever Admin story lines are sold.
I agree. But, the average person won’t question that… it will become “truth”. The information control of the administration is brilliant.
Hasn’t US war coverage always been censored? While Miller gives details about the constraints placed on her, I think all the embedded reporters agreed to this type of constraint when they signed on. So we have no reason to think that this story is any different than any of the other journalism coming from the embeds.
This story seems to me to be of a different nature, especially because it deals with the heretofore missing link in our stated reason for invading Iraq: WMDs. Further, many embed stories appear to be eyewitness accounts. What did Miller see?