By CAINE O’REAR

I. Intro

On Feb. 17, 2003, The Dallas Morning News broadened the scope of its Iraq coverage. The paper’s lead article addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the prospect of a U.S-led war in Iraq. One Arab journalist said the war would mark the return of colonialism. Another said it was all about oil. A Kuwaiti Air Force general, certain that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, said an invasion was justified.
The News did not run any other front-page articles about the debate among Arab intellectuals before the invasion. But they did run several articles that depicted viewpoints different from those espoused by the Bush administration.

Some critics have alleged that the media failed in its coverage during the run-up to war. These critics claim the media were little more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, unwilling to challenge them any front.

This paper revisits pre-war coverage of Iraq in The News, during the six weeks prior to the invasion on March 20, 2003. The paper examines coverage from the front page, the editorial page and the letters to the editor section. It considers the volume and tone of coverage, as well as the range of topics related to Iraq.

This paper offers evidence that The News’s pre-war coverage of Iraq cannot be deemed a complete failure. However, the paper argues that some of the reporting was incomplete, and could have been improved on.

II. Background

With the closing of The Dallas Times Herald in 1991, The News became the major daily in the Dallas region, not to mention the largest paper in Texas. The A.H. Belo Corporation, which went public in 1981, owns the paper. In 2003, the Monday-Thursday circulation for The News was 500, 357, with Sunday circulation totaling 782,748.

The News was once regarded as one of the nation’s best dailies. From 1986 to 1994, the paper won six Pulitzer Prizes. In a 1999 Columbia Journalism Review survey of the nation’s top 100 editors, the paper ranked as the nation’s fifth-best daily.

The editorial page has a conservative track record. During the 1960s, the paper was regarded as far right-wing. But things changed in the ’70s, and the paper began to slowly achieve recognition on the national stage. The paper has endorsed Republicans for president since 1940, though it remained neutral in the 1964 presidential contest between Johnson and Goldwater.

The paper experienced turmoil in 2004, when the Belo Corporation announced that it would lay off 65 newsroom employees. That figure represented more than 10 percent of the paper’s journalists. In 2006, 111 journalists accepted contractual buyouts offered by Belo, who claimed the cuts would result in $9 million in annual savings.

More bad news arrived in 2004, when the paper got caught overstating its circulation figures by 5 percent. In December 2006, the paper announced it would be shrinking its distribution radius, in an effort to reduce costs.

Cuts to the newsroom staff have been substantial through the years. The News once boasted 11 journalists in its Washington Bureau. Today, the bureau has two reporters and one columnist. The two reporters working in the Washington bureau in 2003 wrote most of the Iraq stories that appeared on the front page.

One member of the Washington press corp took her colleagues to task for what she called their failure in the run-up to war.

Helen Thomas accused her colleagues of “obsequiousness” in her book, Watchdogs of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public.

But Thomas’s claims did not go unchallenged. Dana Milbank, White House correspondent for The Washington Post at the time of the invasion, lambasted the book in a review he wrote for the Post. Milbank listed a number of questions from the transcript that refuted what Thomas had said.

Bill Moyers skewered the media in his PBS documentary Buying the War. The film argued that the mainstream media totally failed to challenge the administration. Moyers suggested that only Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers–now The McClatchy Group–did their job in the prelude to war.

The New York Times ran an article in its International section in May 2004 which addressed the paper’s pre-war reportage. The article, which was bylined “From the Editors,” said the paper was proud of some of its coverage. That was not the case in other areas. “We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been,” the article said.

Howard Kurtz, media critic for The Washington Post, wrote a 2004 article which said that stories challenging the administration’s claims of weapons did not sit well with the Post’s editors. Post reporter Walter Pincus had filed a story questioning the existence
of Hussein’s weapons on March 19, the day before the invasion. But the piece ran on page A17, according to the article. Kurtz said tough stories were written for the Post. They just were not on the front page.

Editor and Publisher ran an article on the media’s coverage of Iraq in January 2003. Journalists interviewed for the piece had different takes on the quality of coverage. “I think the press has done well asking questions,” said David Halberstam, whose career was launched covering Vietnam for The New York Times. “But most people who have Vietnam in their bones are uneasy about this war.”

Orville Schell, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, was more critical. “Newspapers have been a little on the flat side in terms of giving all dimensions,” he told E & P.

It is worth noting that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power did not originate with the Bush administration. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Iraq

Liberation Act of 1998, with President Clinton signing it into law. The act established the U.S. policy of removing Hussein from power and implementing a democratic government.

Methodology

This paper considers Iraq-related content on the front page, editorial page and letters to the editor section of The Dallas Morning News. Most of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress. Every issue of The News, from Feb. 6, 2003, to March 20, 2003, was examined. The issues were viewed on microfilm.

A few supplemental sources were consulted, including Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. The book, which was published in 1995, traces the history of the The News up that point. Newspaper and magazine articles about The News, as well as media coverage of Iraq by the American press in general, were also consulted.

A tally of articles than ran on the front page during the six weeks was taken. Findings were recorded on a coding sheet, which was structured as follows:

Front Page

- Iraq-related article appears on front page? (Yes/No)
- More than one Iraq-related article on front page? (Yes/No)
- Lead article of this issue Iraq-related? (Yes/No)
- Topic of main Iraq-related article (circle one): (Diplomacy/UN, Military/war preparations, Domestic U.S. politics/polls, Iraq government/Iraq people, Other)

Editorials and letters
- Issue includes editorial about Iraq? (Yes, No)
- Content of editorial about Iraq (circle one): (Positive, Neutral, Negative, N/A)
- Any letters to the editor about Iraq? (Yes, No)
- First letter about Iraq (circle one): (Positive, Neutral, Negative, N/A)

Many critics have said the media failed prior to the war. But few of these bomb-throwers have offered evidence to support their claims. They have asserted that the press did not ask tough questions of the administration. Yet the transcript of an interview conducted by the White House press corps, as noted above, proves that tough questions had been asked of the administration.

This paper attempts to answer whether a major regional paper in the United States failed in its coverage. The News is, of course, a major regional paper. During the ’90s, it had the reputation as one of the nation’s best dailies. The News is also in Texas, the home state of President Bush. The editorial page of The News endorsed Bush in 200021 and 2004.

Perhaps the greatest test for a newspaper is the quality of its coverage during wartime. Coverage leading up to war is also crucial. The News, and other American newspapers, had a responsibility to supply the public with the best information they could provide. American lives were at stake. They still are.

Many in the U.S. — and elsewhere in the world — view the war in Iraq as the major issue of the time. Whether that’s the case, few can doubt the war has enormous implications for the future of the Middle East, and the legacy of President Bush.

Findings
- 43 issues featured Iraq-related articles on front page
- 14 issues featured more than one Iraq-related article on front page
- 21 lead articles on front page were Iraq-related
- 10 Iraq-related editorials appeared on editorial page
- 10 Iraq-related editorials supported case for war
- 36 issues featured one or more Iraq-related letters to the editorials
- 21 issues featured anti-war letters in a prominent position in letters section

Front page

In the six weeks before the invasion, most of the Iraq coverage dealt with the diplomatic battle being waged within the United Nations by the Bush administration.

A Feb. 10 article, taken from The Washington Post, addressed the call by France and Germany to send more U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. Three days later, an article appeared concerning the anger many Americans felt over France and Germany’s position vis-a-vis Iraq. Many Americans called for a boycott of French goods at the time.

Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to the United Nations in a Feb. 14 front-page article. The president told the U.N. Security Council to show “backbone” and “courage,” or they would “fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.” Five days later, the paper ran a lead article in which Bush said that “leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion.”

But U.N. Security Council members urged caution, warning that a war in Iraq could disrupt the Middle East and hurt the fight against terrorism, a Feb. 15 article reported.

International protests were the subject of a front-page article the day following. The article also noted that the protest in London was the largest in the city’s history.

The paper’s lead article on Feb. 17 addressed the debate among Arab intellectuals over the war in Iraq. The piece offered a mix of perspectives. Some of the voices interviewed doubted the motives of the U.S. “Many Arab intellectuals fear Iraq is only one in a series of regime changes contemplated by the Bush administration,” the article said.

Another article addressing the possible consequences of war in the Middle East appeared on March 4. Gregory Katz, reporting from the paper’s Europe Bureau, said there were concerns in the Middle East that the violence could spread to other countries. He also noted the rise of anti-Americanism in the region in recent years.

The post-war plans of the Bush administration were the subject of a Feb. 21 article taken from The Washington Post. The article said the administration planned to assume full control of a post-Hussein Iraq. An American civilian, the article said, would oversee reconstruction and the creation of a democratic government.

The Washington Post supplied another front-page article on Feb. 24, regarding the call by Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix for Iraq to destroy its alleged missile system.

Bush claimed a free Iraq would foster democracy elsewhere in the Middle East in a Feb. 27 article. Bush made the speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank associated with neoconservatism.

Another Post article appeared regarding Hussein’s’ alleged weapons on March 1. The lead article said that Iraq had agreed to destroy its banned missiles.

A front page article on the cost of the war appeared March 3. The article said administration officials estimated it could cost as much $95 billion.

Secretary of State Colin Powell charged Hussein with deception in a March 6 lead article. The U.S asked the U.N. Security Council to set a 10-day deadline in a March 8 article. The lead article on March 9 warned that the war in Iraq could worsen relations between the U.S. and other countries. A front-page article that appeared two days later, written by Gregory Katz from the Europe Bureau, suggested the debate over war had hurt relations between Britain and France.

Another diplomacy article appeared four days before the invasion, which quoted several political analysts who criticized the president for his bull-headed approach. “Now they’re having their hard-nosed, unsentimental foreign policy thrown back in their face,” said James Lindsay, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, in reference to the U.N.’s refusal to authorize the invasion. The next day an article appeared in which the U.S blamed France for its problems at the U.N.

The paper changed topics on March 18, when it ran a front-page article on war preparations among Iraqi civilians. Another front-page article that day dealt with American protesters.

On the day of the invasion, the paper proclaimed, “U.S strikes Iraq.” The lead article dealt with the American military strikes. The other front-page article focused on Hussein, who had urged Iraqis to take up arms against the Americans.

Editorials

All of the paper’s editorials supported the administration’s case for war. A Feb. 6 editorial argued that nations that did not see the need for war were blind. The article said Hussein could not be trusted to disarm.

On Feb. 16, the paper ran editorial which stated that Hussein had failed to comply with the U.N Security Council resolution to disarm. Ignoring Iraq’s non-compliance, the editorial said, could allow the “possibility that Iraq could use its artfully concealed weapons to wreak murder on an unprecedented scale.”

Though the editorial page supported the war, it did not always champion the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. A Feb. 18 editorial urged the Bush administration to improve public relations with Europe. It also admonished the harsh rhetoric of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who it claimed had created a sense of division among the U.S. and several allies.

A Feb. 22 editorial urged Mexico to vote with the U.S. on Iraq. Until then, Mexico had said that U.N. weapons inspections should continue in Iraq. A vote against the United States on the issue could strain relations between the two countries, the paper warned.

The editorial page addressed the deteriorating relations between the United States and France on Feb. 26. The editorial said France was wrong to call for more inspections. But the editorial wasn’t entirely anti-French. “France’s supposition that war could stir up a hornet’s nest of Islamist terrorism could yet prove prophetic,” the editorial said. The piece also urged Americans not to turn France into a “caricature.”

A March 8 editorial claimed the war was “inevitable,” as Iraq could not fully disarm by the March 17 deadline. An editorial that appeared one week later said it would be best to have authorization by the U.N Security Council before invading. But, failing that, the invasion was still warranted.

Two days before the invasion, an editorial claimed Hussein was unlikely to flee the country. It also said Bush made the right move in not waiting for the approval of the U.N. Security Council to invade.

An editorial that ran on March 19 sought to correct the assumption that United States would “go it alone” in Iraq. The editorial noted the contribution being made by Britain, Australia and Poland, among others. The editorial also chastised Bush for his diplomatic efforts in the run-up to the invasion, saying he had “created the impression of an arrogant, self-interested and blustery power.”

The March 20 editorial blamed Hussein for the war. “The United States did not choose this war: Saddam Hussein thrust this war upon it through his persistent defiance,” the editorial said. The editorial noted that the war marked a turning point in world diplomacy. Nations would launch pre-emptive strikes in the future, rather than waiting for the enemy to attack, it said. It also said the coalition forces should make Iraq a model of democracy for other Middle East countries.

Letters to the editor

Most of the letters to the editor depicted anti-war voices. Mike Hashimoto, assistant editorial page editor for The News, said in an e-mail interview that the paper’s general letter policy is to publish letters in proportion to the amount received.

“If, in a given period (usually a week), we receive 50 anti-war letters and 25 pro-war letters (to grossly oversimplify), our policy dictates that we publish them at roughly 2-to-1 in favor of the anti-war side,” wrote Hashimoto, who began overseeing the letters operation in 2004.

Hashimoto said the paper currently receives 800 to 1,200 letters per week. But the paper only has space to run 10 percent of them.

Few of the anti-war letters minced words. A Feb. 20 letter called Bush “arrogant,” saying he had failed to listen to the opinions of many in America.

A Feb. 23 letter suggested Bush had a double standard when it came to “terrorists and those who harbor them.” The letter said the United States supports Saudi Arabia, a nation that produces terrorists.

A Feb. 26 letter written by a French women said France was still fond of America, but called the boycott on French goods unnecessary. She said she supported Chirac’s stance on Iraq, saying the Iraq war “may eventually prove unnecessary.”

A March 15 editorial lamented that the Dixie Chicks, a popular country music group, were from Texas. During a concert in London a few days before, lead singer Natalie Maines had told the crowd that the group was ashamed that President Bush was also from Texas. The writer said he used to be a big fan of the group, but now he would boycott them.

On March 19, the day before the invasion, a Dallas man wrote that there were 34 hours and 31 minutes left to “ponder how this could have been done differently.”

Analytical conclusion

The Dallas Morning News did not fail completely in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq, as many critics have alleged. However, the paper could have incorporated more viewpoints on the front page, as well as devoted more coverage to other Iraq topics, including post-war planning and the invasion’s possible implications for the greater Middle East. For that reason, the paper gets a mere passing grade.

In the six weeks before the invasion, the main storyline in the American media involved the diplomatic battle being waged by the Bush administration within the U.N.

The same held true for The News. Most of the stories involving the U.N. battle were written by reporters in the paper’s Washington bureau. And most of the articles focused on whether the U.N. Security Council should be allowed more time for weapons inspections. France and Germany had called for more time, while the U.S said inspections had failed. Articles of this kind succeeded in showing both sides of the argument.

An Iraq-related related article appeared on the front page of the paper every day for six weeks prior to the invasion. So The News was definitely not asleep. They devoted a wealth of coverage to the issue. It can be assumed that the Iraq articles they ran during that time were deemed to be the most important of the day by the editors.

There were few articles on the front page that showed different points of view. A story about the debate among Arab intellectuals was written by Jim Landers of the paper’s Washington bureau. But there could have been more.

The paper could also have devoted more coverage to post-war plans. One front-page article from The Washington Post was not sufficient. The administration had announced it would assume full control of Iraq, once Hussein had been deposed. The subject warranted closer inspection. How would it work? What were the specifics? Gregory Katz, reporting out of the paper’s Europe bureau, wrote a March 4 article on the possibility of the invasion inciting violence in other parts of the Middle East. Katz was the only reporter based overseas filing reports on Iraq that appeared on the front page. Perhaps having more reporters based overseas would have widened the scope of the paper’s coverage.

The editorial page supported the war wholeheartedly. Still, more questions could have been raised about the existence of alleged weapons, and plans for the post-war occupation. However, all the editorials did not echo the words of the Bush administration. For example, the editorial page conceded that France’s prediction of escalating violence as a result of the invasion “could prove prophetic.”

In July 2007, the editorial page admitted it had failed in accepting the administration’s case for war. “Americans had reasonable expectations that an invasion of such magnitude would include a viable, well-orchestrated postwar plan to bring stability and democracy to Iraq,” the editorial said. “How wrong we were.”

The letters to the editor section featured more anti-war letters than pro-war ones. The letters featured a wide variety of viewpoints, though.

The research methods for this paper were time-consuming. But what else could have been done? Interviews could have been conducted with the journalists who alleged the press failed in the run-up to the invasion (e.g., Bill Moyers, Helen Thomas). Interviews with reporters who covered Iraq for The News in 2003 could have proven valuable as well.