3 ms·

Perhaps if the entire mainstream media had reported things differently (instead of seemingly all of them being blindly in favor of it), then yes, maybe it would

Perhaps if the entire mainstream media had reported things differently (instead of seemingly all of them being blindly in favor of it), then yes, maybe it wouldn't have happened. That is assuming of course that the US government actually cares what the public thinks when powerful government officials want war.

meowface 8y ago
Perhaps you're right, but at the time, most mainstream media was simply reporting on what the executive branch had already claimed was proven: Saddam had WMDs. At the time, there were no government/intelligence officials saying otherwise. The media had no strong reason to doubt the government's claims before the war started, as well as no way to validate or disprove the claims. And it's not like it would've been the most shocking revelation in the world if it were true; Saddam was a despot who had undoubtedly heavily researched, developed, and used WMDs in the past and had motive to continue stockpiling WMDs. The media certainly should have been more skeptical and critical of the government, but I'd say at that early stage, the blame mostly falls on Bush and his advisors. If you were working at one of these news outlets at that time, I bet you would have reported it similar to the rest of the mainstream media, too.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  The media is not supposed to simply parrot government talking points, at least not in a free society. Even if Saddam did have WMDs, so what? So does North Korea and other hostile regimes, and so does the US. Couldn't the media have questioned whether or not that was a valid excuse for war? That's the type of thing Phil Donahue of MSNBC did, and his questioning of the war got him fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program History is important, too, but apparently not to them. Was it ever mentioned in the mainstream media that the US itself had provided billions of dollars in military equipment and support to Saddam, including dual use technologies used for chemical and biological weapons? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Dual-use_exports https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Ir... "You know we armed Iraq...during the Gulf War those intelligence reports would come out"-- 'Iraq, incredible weapons! Incredible weapons!' "...How do you know that?" 'Well...we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears we're going in!' -Bill Hicks https://youtu.be/MyG2c-Wddzo https://youtu.be/MyG2c-Wddzo
  - meowface 8y ago
    You're right, but I think hindsight is 20/20. This was one of the events that let us know to be much more skeptical of government intelligence and military claims.

meowface 8y ago

Perhaps you're right, but at the time, most mainstream media was simply reporting on what the executive branch had already claimed was proven: Saddam had WMDs. At the time, there were no government/intelligence officials saying otherwise. The media had no strong reason to doubt the government's claims before the war started, as well as no way to validate or disprove the claims. And it's not like it would've been the most shocking revelation in the world if it were true; Saddam was a despot who had undoubtedly heavily researched, developed, and used WMDs in the past and had motive to continue stockpiling WMDs. The media certainly should have been more skeptical and critical of the government, but I'd say at that early stage, the blame mostly falls on Bush and his advisors. If you were working at one of these news outlets at that time, I bet you would have reported it similar to the rest of the mainstream media, too.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
The media is not supposed to simply parrot government talking points, at least not in a free society. Even if Saddam did have WMDs, so what? So does North Korea and other hostile regimes, and so does the US. Couldn't the media have questioned whether or not that was a valid excuse for war? That's the type of thing Phil Donahue of MSNBC did, and his questioning of the war got him fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program History is important, too, but apparently not to them. Was it ever mentioned in the mainstream media that the US itself had provided billions of dollars in military equipment and support to Saddam, including dual use technologies used for chemical and biological weapons? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Dual-use_exports https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Ir... "You know we armed Iraq...during the Gulf War those intelligence reports would come out"-- 'Iraq, incredible weapons! Incredible weapons!' "...How do you know that?" 'Well...we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears we're going in!' -Bill Hicks https://youtu.be/MyG2c-Wddzo https://youtu.be/MyG2c-Wddzo
- meowface 8y ago
  You're right, but I think hindsight is 20/20. This was one of the events that let us know to be much more skeptical of government intelligence and military claims.