Once Again, Krugman's On Point

From his piece in today's NY Times:

Again and again, administration officials have insisted that some particular evildoer is causing all our problems. Last July they confidently predicted an end to the insurgency after Saddam's sons were killed. In December, they predicted an end to the insurgency after capturing Saddam himself. Six weeks ago - was it only six weeks? - Al Qaeda was orchestrating the insurgency, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the root of all evil. The obvious point that we're facing widespread religious and nationalist resentment in Iraq, which is exploited but not caused by the bad guy du jour, never seems to sink in.

The situation in Falluja seems to have been greatly exacerbated by tough-guy posturing and wishful thinking. According to The Jerusalem Post, after the murder and mutilation of American contractors, Mr. Bush told officials that "I want heads to roll." Didn't someone warn him of the likely consequences of attempting to carry out a manhunt in a hostile, densely populated urban area?

And now we have a new villain. Yesterday Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez declared that "the mission of the U.S. forces is to kill or capture Moktada al-Sadr." If and when they do, we'll hear once again that we've turned the corner. Does anyone believe it?

I'm always heartened by Paul Krugman. In fact, to a large degree, a lot of what comes off the Op-Ed pages of the Times gives me hope that these truths will sink in to the American consciousness. The chorus is only growing, with more and more calls for accountability. Will it amount to a hill of beans? Especially when the Times' news division, along with the majority of most other major media outlets, is still recycling official administration positions and calling it reporting.

The other week I had occasion to ask Gail Collins, editor for the Times' opinion page, about this disconnect, citing Krugman and Judith Miller as opposite representatives (did anyone else happen to catch John Warner on Larry King, the night of Condi's 9/11 testimony, effusing praise upon Miss Miller while planting the meme that, whatever its findings, the Commission had already devolved into a partisan affair. Watch for that to slowly fill the pages). What I gathered from her reply was that they are, in essence, two separate organizations, and there is a deliberate "wall" between the two. Subjectivity and objectivity, each cordoned off from the other. I pressed the issue: which is which? It seems obvious to me that objectivity is sorely lacking in the news division; they are handed obviously misrepresented information and present it as fact. She told me they were "doing the best they can." It seemed clear to me she meant it sincerely, though I may have sensed something deeper beneath her statement. She repeated, "They're doing the best they can." At which point, she's a very charming and approachable woman, I ceased and desisted, thanked her for her time and left.

It remains to be seen whether the press can, and will, come fully out of their self-imposed stupor and begin again to fulfil their mandate. But whatever happens with the mainstream media, there is a revolution in journalism afoot. Our primary news sources are shifting, and the control of information dissemination has passed into millions of hands. All of the issues that have been brought to light regarding 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the Bush administration in general, though under-covered (if covered at all) by the major media, have been internet driven issues. The collective action of many has stopped the government-media collusion from brushing so many things under the rug. There is hope yet.