By Jessica Newman
Earlier this month, the Washington Post produced a “groundbreaking,” “exclusive” series called Top Secret America, exposing the U.S.’s outsourcing of national security and sensitive intelligence operations. Soon after, the major networks picked up the news and praised the Post and its two-year investigation for bringing such harrowing information to light.
An example of good journalism? Maybe, if it had been reported about five years ago, before other independent journalists, like Tim Shorrock, starting covering the issue extensively. Jeremy Scahill summed these sentiments up nicely in an article he wrote for The Nation this week:
“[The series'] greatest accomplishment is forcing a discussion onto corporate TV years after it would have had an actual impact.
“The misplaced hype surrounding the Post series speaks volumes to the ahistorical nature of US media culture. Next week, if the New York Times published a story on how there were no WMDs in Iraq, there would no doubt be cable news shows that would act like it was an earth-moving revelation delivered by Moses on the stone tablet of exclusive, groundbreaking journalism.”
We’re glad you caught on, WaPo, but the fact is this is too little, too late. Remember your primary duty when acting (posing?) as the fourth estate: seek the truth as a watchdog for American citizens. Yes, you sought the truth and found it (even if you left out key details, like contractors’ roles in assassinations and torture), but couldn’t you have done this years earlier, when we had more of a chance to pull ourselves out of this contractor addiction? Other journalists did…
Now hold on a minute. I’m with WikiLeaks on this one.
For one thing, Scahill and Co. never produced a massive searchable database that allows people to monitor hundreds of individual contractors, see where they’re located, etc. They didn’t because they couldn’t. Their media organizations don’t have the resources to pull off a project of this scale. It’s hard to comprehend how many records requests, how much programming, and how much data entry went in to making this happen – so it’s also hard to criticize them for taking so long.
Sure, Scahill et al were beating the drum on this issue for years. And bless them for that. But the story shows that privatization of our national security apparatus is only increasing. So the WaPo is too late for what, exactly?
Alternative media people need to stop seeing the MSM as an adversary, and realize that the WaPo just performed a massive public service to anyone interested in holding the massive military-intelligence-private contractor apparatus accountable.
Travis,
Agreed on all accounts. Yes, they provided a massive database that makes it easier for citizens to investigate the issue for themselves. True, this is something “Scahill and Co.” could never do, and true, this was something that still required a lot of research and time and dedication. For that, they should be commended. They also provided a lot of up-to-date numbers and information to show the long-lasting relevance of this issue.
My only concern is why didn’t it happen sooner? This story was on the rise for years, and for many, like ourselves, the privatization of the military/intelligence sector was common knowledge. Why didn’t the mainstream media choose to pick it up earlier? Why didn’t they choose to do this research and amass these databases earlier?
The WaPo says the writers worked on amassing this information over the course of two years. That means they started researching this stuff in 2008. Why not in 2003? Or even 2005 when alternative media was already doing its best to hit this issue hard?
Maybe if they had done so, the public would have been able to hold the “massive military-intelligence-private contractor apparatus” accountable before it became so massive. Although, maybe it’s always been out of control. As the WaPo series states, this privatized complex is now so large and out of control that the government can’t even keep track of it.
I just wish the MSM would open its eyes and come out from under a rock. One thing I think we can all agree on as far as the WaPo series goes is, could they have possibly thought this was going to be a new revelation? If so, what was keeping them from covering this earlier?
“With more hired guns in Iraq than in any other U.S. conflict since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, [Rich] and other armed contractors also admit their role is cloudy and controversial. They do shoot to kill, but they aren’t legally considered combatants. U.S. military officials have expressed concern about violence in which the private contractors open fire. The contractors’ mission is to protect the lives of individuals and cargo but not necessarily to support the broader interests of the U.S. counterinsurgency.”
“Private Security Workers Living On Edge in Iraq; Downing of Helicopter Shows Heightened Risks” The Washington Post, April 23, 2005 (“when alternative media was already doing its best to hit this issue hard”)
I’m sure the Post wishes it had done the database sooner, too. But they certainly weren’t “ignoring the issue” any more than “alternative media” were.