Advocacy v. lying and a complicit media

Deploring the unwillingness of the media do its job is a regular theme of mine and today two of my favourite bloggers address this topic. As Glenn says, the media's job regarding government is not to be a "megaphone for its propaganda" and ReddHedd wants more than "steno-reporters".

ReddHedd: I don't know about all of you, but it is getting exhausting pointing out how all we want is for the media to do their jobs -- and then having them, repeatedly, show that they aren't really interested in doing their jobs. All of the exceptional journalists out there who work hard, dig in, and do their jobs have to cringe every time they see a story like this with no follow-up and no explanations.

Steno journalism is not acceptable -- and we'll take the time to point this out -- REPEATEDLY -- until lazy steno-reporters get the message. Repeating Republican talking points makes you a political shill. Asking the real, honest, follow-up questions and digging into the story fully...well, that can get you a Pulitzer.

Glenn Greenwald: Like anyone else, the White House has every right to engage in aggressive advocacy when defending itself as part of the NSA scandal or any other issue, and it is not the role of the media to take sides in political debates. But when the White House simply lies, it is the responsibility -- the core purpose -- of journalists to point that out.

Here, according to an article from Reuters, is what Scott McClellan said today in response to Sen. Feingold's censure resolution:

"I think it does raise the question, how do you fight and win the war on terrorism?" McClellan said. "And if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate. We are a nation at war."

This is not advocacy. This is just lying. No Democrats are advocating that we not listen to Al Qaeda communications, and Scott McClellan knows that. And no journalist ought to pass along this falsehood without pointing out that it is factually false.

The debate is not and has never been over whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The issue is whether the Bush Administration should eavesdrop in accordance with the law (with judicial oversight and approval), or in violation of the law (in secret and with no oversight, something that has been a criminal offense in this country since 1978). That is NSA Scandal 101, something that has been clearly established and beyond dispute from for months.

It is a potent reflection of how little the White House can say in response to the accusation that the President broke the law that they can respond only by: (a) flagrantly and dishonestly distorting the argument against it (by pretending that this is about whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda), or (b) accusing those who protest the President's law-breaking of committing treason.

The reason that we invaded Iraq with an astounding (and truly embarrassing) 70% of the country believing (falsely) that Saddam personally participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks is because the media failed in its responsibility to correct factually false Government statements. They just blithely passed them along without comment, as though their function is to give the government a megaphone for its propaganda rather than serve as an adversarial watchdog which cynically scrutinizes the government's claims.

It is completely unacceptable, and a total abdication of their responsibility, for the media to pass along the White House's factually false claim that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The media does not need to, and should not, take sides in the NSA debate, but it ought to inform American citizens about what the arguments actually are and what the debate is about. If it doesn't do that, what does it do?