Why is the media not attacking the government over the second Iraq dossier?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You know, the one trailed for weeks by Tony Blair back in February as proof of Saddams massive and terrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The one published with much fanfare. The one cobbled together from an ancient thesis nicked off the Internet and presented as up-to-date intelligence. The one that even Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell admitted was a load of bollocks.

The one that everyone seems to have forgotten about now, preferring to concentrate on the September dossier, the 45-minute claim etc etc. So when Blair said that deliberately misleading the public on the issue of Iraq would have merited his resignation, did the media miss a colossal open goal with regard to the second dossier?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 12 September 2003 08:53 (twenty-two years ago)

isn't this a perfect example of why it's better to say "oops we fucked up, heh, sorry abt that!!" than 'HOW DARE YOU CALL US LIARS YOU BBC MOFOS YR ASS IS MINE YAAGH!"

a soft answer turns away wrath yada yada

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 12 September 2003 08:58 (twenty-two years ago)

that doesn't answer the question ethically or even professionally, but i do think the govt's self-deprecating and embarrassed response for the second detoxified the situation for them, and now the sheer detail of the hutton enquiry crowds out wider perspective

also: anyone WANTING to make the govt sweat over this issue may well be keeping their powder dry till the morning after hutton delivers

ie he says "This was an incompetent ugly mess but no evil intent was present" (or whatever), govt sighs w.relief, is immediately THEN hit w.questions abt the other dossier, rolls over, curls up, dies

i am not predicting this passage of events especially, but it makes tactical sense i think

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 12 September 2003 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Who was actually responsible for that 2nd dossier - Blair? Campbell?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 12 September 2003 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

the hutton enquiry crowds out wider perspective

This is my fear. The Hutton Inquiry is a feeding frenzy for journalists with column inches to fill. But I wonder whether there is such a thing as a saturation point in the minds of newspaper readers and editors where war in Iraq is concerned.

The more important question of why the UK invaded Iraq, on what intelligence, and why this intelligence was to be trusted should be investigated.

― bert (bert), Friday, 12 September 2003 09:51 (twenty-two years ago)

if "the media" includes people writing books, then this question collapses, actually

one of the assumptions liberal newspaper readers make — very wrongly I think — is that the there is a seamless continuum of attitude, information and interest between the book industury and the (broadsheet) newspaper industry (ie that what you get from books provides fuel and content to what you discover in newspapers, that books are a media-adjunct to newspapers)

they are formats totally at war with one another, culturally, i think

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 12 September 2003 10:01 (twenty-two years ago)

(of course i mean "readers of liberal newspapers" and "tend to make")

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 12 September 2003 10:04 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.