Media Pet Peeve

One little thing that's been bothering me in the 'liberal media' coverage of what's happening in Pakistan (the new foreign policy obsession of the week... sorry Myanmar, sorry Sudan, sorry Turkey/Kurdistan!) is their uncritical reporting of the origins of the emergency rule. Most stories I have seen imply that it's really about defending Pakistan from extremists like President/General Musharraf says... and not about protecting his personal power from constitutional rebuke, as is the reality.

This speaks to a larger media problem of recent years, which is regurgitating official government spin as fact, with any actual fact-checking or journalism buried far under the lede, if present at all.

This is selective, of course. When it comes to Iran, they take the worst-case scenario as fact. Are they developing nuclear weapons? Yes? No? Who cares! They're scary! Too often once the media settles into the established narrative, they're unwilling to do the critical analysis necessary to see the larger picture (Watergate was just a third-rate burglary, ya know).

I am reminded of Meet The Press's Tim Russert explaining to Bill Moyers (skip to 7:10) why he never featured on his show before the war anyone who could debunk the administration's case. He just couldn't be bothered to seek them out. "To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them," he sighed.

The fact is that Gen. Musharraf is no more doing all of this for the purpose of keeping Pakistan secure than President Bush is seeking amnesty for telecom companies for the purpose of saving America from islamofascism. Do your homework, reporters.