Why was the media quiet in the run up to Iraq

As mentioned earlier in the week on this blog,I attended the War media and the Truth conference in London at the weekend.


You can watch the video opening of the conference here,but I have finally got around to putting down some thoughts.



The first speaker at the conference was Tony Benn.In his opening remarks he made the point that information should always be at the core of all decisions.He remarked that journalists have a moral responsiblity to report what is actually happening and explain the alternate arguments.Thus the media should set the agenda.In the run up to the Iraqi war,this was not the case and the agenda was set by government.

Peter Wilby reminded us of a leader that he wrote in the New Statesman during the dossier crisis."Deployed how,where and against whom.

Critical voices on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction were simply not heard.He cites in particular the case of Scott Ridder who was vilified in the press for claiming that the weapons did not exist as being an apologist for Saddam.

As he so aptley put it the headline "Saddam not much of a threat" wouldn't make good copy.


Sami Ramadami,an Iraqi exile talked of his pessimism for the media and described them as being frankly off beat.He dsimissed talk of a conspiracy in the media over the war,instead blaming journalists for having an establishment background.

There was no esrious opposition to the war and the media played the patriotic card once it broke out.Those that questioned it were effectively sidelined.