The independent journalist I.F. Stone operated under the principal that all governments lie.  Stone's dictum propelled his keen mind to dissect and analyze every government-related release he came in contact with.  His findings of inaccuracies, exaggerations, and blatant falsehoods were published in his home-produced newspaper, IF Stone's Weekly.  Since the time of Stone's writings - the 1960's - changes in media ownership and government relations have significantly altered the exchange between the press and the ruling bodies to the point where precise deconstruction of government actions and propaganda is no longer the norm but the exception.  In today's media environment governments still lie, but they are often assisted in their lying by media whose job it once was to uncover such deceit.
Perhaps Stone himself exaggerates when he says all governments lie, though one can hardly say that the United  States is exempt from such categorization.  Most recently, President George W. Bush has found himself in a political pickle in the absence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, whose existence he touted as a reason for the 2003 invasion.  Certainly, claiming that something exists when it decidedly does not is a lie.  Bush may only be following precedent, however.  President Nixon lied about involvement in Watergate, and President Clinton lied under oath about relations with Monica Lewinsky.  Politicians' campaign promises notoriously go unfulfilled, and this grievance only enhances the view of a government that will lie to maintain its power.
In a world where such incentive exists, it is necessary for an alert media to play the role of government watchdog, carefully picking apart and evaluating for truth the words and actions of the government, as the government cannot be relied upon to accurately present information about itself. Whether the press today keeps voter/taxpayers accurately informed or ever has should be a matter of grave concern for citizens, as it is to them that the government is ultimately responsible, and from them that it receives its power and funding.  The New York Times can be of assistance in evaluating how well the news media performs its job.  The Times has long been hailed as a news-accuracy barometer, setting the standard for good reporting in the same way that Saturday Night Live does for sketch comedy (is it any wonder that New York City, home to both these institutions, is so arrogant?).
In some ways, the Times has performed admirably, as in 2005 when it ran an article titled, "Vietnam Study, Casting Doubts, Remains Secret" (NYT, 10/31/05).  The article describes a still-classified report by a National Security Agency historian that details how elements of the U.S. government lied about the TonkinGulf attack, which President Johnson subsequently used to build support for the war in Vietnam.  The article carefully critiques the report, and even goes so far as to draw a connection between the NSA's lies and those of the current president.  The paper continues to impress with articles such as "Taking a Closer Look at the Two Candidates" (NYT, 11/6/05) which analyzed "candidate's record, combined with public statements, policy papers and interviews" to elaborately examine the campaign claims and promises of two candidates for New Jersey governor.  The paper can perform with vigor even when not uncovering lies, as when inJune 2003 when it ran an article titled, "Bush May Have Exaggerated, But Did He Lie?" which addressed the issue of Presidential truth-twisting but ultimately concluded that the President did not.  This evaluation of the Times ignores, of course, its most recent and appalling instance of complete failure, and this is the case of Judith Miller.
Miller was a reporter for the Times when she developed a close link with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.  Libby fed Miller information that she used to write pro-war articles, like her 2002 page 1 lead article that stated that Hussein did, in fact, have nuclear weapons.  The Libby/Miller relationship turned sticky when he leaked the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, wife of U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who in 2003 traveled to Niger to research claims that Hussein had illegally sought uranium there.  When his report concluded that Hussein had not sought out uranium, it was ignored by the President, who afterwards in a State of the Unionaddress lied to the nation and said that Hussein had tried to purchase uranium.  Angry, Wilson wrote an op-ed to The New York Times (who else?) that refuted Bush's claim.  Soon thereafter, the identity of Wilson's wife was revealed (blown, really) to the press, and some believe it was to send a message to other would-be whistleblowers within the government.
An investigation into the leak led a judge to order Miller to reveal the name of her source.  When she refused, she went to jail and became a journalistic martyr.  After 85 days and consent from Libby, however, she divulged his name and was released.
The Miller affair showed the management at the Times to be completely inept.  Miller's superiors knew that Libby was her source, and thus should have foreseen the possibility that the reporter would be used as a government mouthpiece.  But rather than carefully check her stories, they gave her free reign to print whatever Cheney-inspired propaganda she saw fit.  Miller even went to jail in order to protect her source, who was not a medium-level rebellious government employee ratting out the higher-ups (as Deep Throat had been) but instead was the higher-up himself.
So, if the Times has not been carefully differentiating between the truth and the word of the government, what has it been doing?  A look at the paper circa February 2003 will prove enlightening.  On February 5th of that year, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, made his now-infamous presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons capabilities.  Though history has proven much of Powell's presentation to be false (i.e., a lie), the Times was sold.  On February 6th, it ran a lead editorial lauding Powell's "factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime," saying that, "It may not have produced a 'smoking gun,' but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."  On March 19th, the U.S. initiated military action against Iraq with support from American taxpayer/voters who believed that Hussein had WMDs.
The Times most likely has no inherent disposition towards towing the government line, but that has not stopped it from doing so in at least two particularly damaging occasions.  Like any other news source, the New York Times is in the business of providing news, and as Eric Alterman writes in What Liberal Media?, "the problem many organizations face is not to stay in business, but to stay in journalism," (this quote has been attributed to everyone from Fred Friendly to Harold Evans, however).  Any money-making news outlet must measure risks against gains.  In the case of Judith Miller, the editors unwisely chose to risk being used by the government because they most likely believed that an exclusive, high-level anonymous source would give them a competitive edge.  In the case of the war, a more sinister motivation can be imagined.
Wars make news.  Wars produce war heroes, war stories, war dead, and other easily exploitable media gold-mines.  As Alterman writes, Fox news experienced a huge upswing in ratings because its content was "the kind of jingoistic cheerleading that equates reporting antiwar attitudes...with giving aid and comfort to the enemy"(p. 269).  Perhaps in some warped mapping of risks and gains, the editorial staff of Fox or the Times decided that the economic ups of a war (from a journalistic perspective) outweighed any losses, even in that all-important arena of credibility.
They were hardly alone in their decision.  Other media outlets, either taking their cues from the Times or realizing the potential benefits themselves, took notably pro-war stances.  The Washington Post, for example, wrote that Powell's UN presentation, "[proved] to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool, or possibly a Frenchman, could conclude otherwise."  Other newspapers weighed in, saying that Powell's speech produced "not just one 'smoking gun' but a battery of them." (Denver Post), or showered it with adjectives like "overwhelming," (The Tampa Tribune), "devastating," (The Oregonian), "masterful,"(The Hartford Courant) or "credible and persuasive," (The Plain Dealer [Cleveleand]).  Sadly, some of these adjectives - such as "devastating" - would be used in the coming years to describe the damage done to Iraq and America by journalistic negligence.
That negligence may have been unintentional, as Alterman asserts when he chalks it up to "natural patriotism" (p.268), but it would be wrong to call it an honest mistake, for the news outlets that spread Bush's lies were anything but.  Had news outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post carefully dissected the information passed to them by the government - in short, if they had actually done their jobs - then it is entirely possible that the truth about Saddam?s lack of unconventional weapons would have been revealed, and from there one can only conjecture that war would have been averted.  In 2003, as in every year, the institutions that provide American voter/taxpayers with accurate information were given the important responsibility of confirming or invalidating the claims of an untruthful administration, and in 2003 they failed miserably.
With a news media so indebted to the government for information and the corporate structure for funding, one can only ask, 'Who can you trust?'  Izzy Stone is a tempting choice, for he is free from both institutions, but this also places him in a position free from oversight of an editor (i.e. Judith Miller).  Stone's modern equivalent, some may argue, is the blogger, who like him answers to no one, and like him has the inherent lack of oversight.  Still, bloggers and Stone maintain a place of trustworthiness if only because they have a proven record of accuracy.  The bloggers themselves made headlines in their well-publicized clash with Dan Rather over faked Bush service records, a confrontation which left CBS News - formerly a heavyweight - looking less reputable than Average Joe with a keyboard.  Other independent journalists have proven themselves ahead of the pack, notably Michael Moore, who on his website disclosed that former FEMA director Michael Brown was on still on payroll, a story that AOL News didn't break until two days later.
Who can you trust?  Perhaps the answer is as simple as whoever is right the most often.  In an age when politicians, CEOs, and journalists all share the same communal bed, any other method may be an exercise in futility.
	BACK TO ESSAYS                                     BACK TO HOME