"Now They Tell Us" by Michael Massing

After reading this book, I have learned that even the Times is not the most reliable source of information. It is often mentioned in this book how the Times are either reporting certain issues, such as the abuses against Iraqi prisoners, days later after other publications have published them, or they often ignore the importance of the case and have them printed on the inside pages.

Not only that, Massing also mentions the portrayal of the war through the American media versus European/Arabic media, in which the American media always portray the bravery of the soldiers and the so-called success of the war, while the European and Arabic media, al-Jazeera for example, are covering the unseen/other side of the war, such as unedited tapes from Osama bin Laden or the Palestinian casualties. The problem is that the American media is showing the Americans what they want to see.

First of all, 9/11, be it a terrorist attack or a demolition job, has given Americans fear and panic. That, in return, manufactured a consent from the Americans to allow the administration to do anything that will stop terrorism and keep the country safe.

On August 6, 2002, VP Dick Cheney made a speech claiming that there is no doubt Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing to use them against the US. With this information, the Americans are sure to support the hinted war. The problem is that there is no evidence of Cheney's claims.

Meanwhile, journalists Judith Miller and Michael Gordon are getting information from Iraqi defectors who are telling them about Saddam Hussein's investment on nuclear weapons and mysterious aluminum tubes that were imported – tubes that could be possibly used as a part of an atomic bomb. On September 8, 2002, a story was published on the Times based on this finding, written by Miller and Gordon themselves. This story was something the administration was not ready for and hence caused quite a spark that opened the doors to the possibility of a war.

Although Iraq itself had claimed that the tubes were to be used for building rockets, doubts were still raised and there was an ongoing analysis on the tubes. An article was written by Joby Warrick of the Washington Post, describing how the administration's claims about the tubes were challenged by "independent experts" who questioned the intentions of the tubes. This article was one of the first public mentions of the administration's possible misuse, but since it appeared on page A18, the story only caused little stir.

While more and more experts started to find that there are no existing nuclear sites in Iraq and the tubes were most likely intended for the rockets, the press were trying to keep these reporting on the down-low. On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell's speech at the UN on Iraq's nuclear issue and linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda received high approval ratings in American polls, even though most of Powell's claims were already proven to be unlikely, showing that the Americans will believe everything they saw.

Because of the journalists' tendency to not challenge the administration and try to not make the administration look bad, the false evidence in Powell's speech was not taken into importance. Since the war was launched, the press has been trying to show the "successful" side of the war, keeping stories about increasing casualties in Iraq away from the front pages and instead are published on page 10 or 12. Hopefully, the American media learns a lesson from this unnecessary war and should stop worrying about challenging the administration because clearly the intelligence unit was not doing such a good job, and instead start informing the people about the truth.