"WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception" offers an intelligent and critical look the media and how it was more or less manipulated or controlled by interests other than journalism during its coverage of the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond. Danny Schechter uses his experience in news broadcasting combined with original film, interviews, file footage, print, etc. to examine the role of news media in OIF and how the war was delivered to the public as a carefully package and planned media event not unlike the Superbowl. An insightful study of news which is much less agenda-driven propaganda than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and consequently less entertaining, "WMD..." will appeal most to those interested in major network news broadcasting. (B)
10 Reviews
How the American media failed
DennisLittrell9 August 2005
This is an excellent documentary showing how the Bush administration cowed, seduced and used the media to sell the Iraqi war to the American public. It is also an indictment of the media for its failure to accurately report the news during the build up to the war and during the war itself. The media, from the lofty New York Times to the unfair and unbalanced Fox News, bought hook, line and sinker the administration's tale of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and helped Bush and the neocons prepare the American public for the invasion.
A nice piece of war-prep irony revealed in the DVD was the administration's disinclination to call the plan "Operation Iraqi Liberation" since that would have led to the unfortunate (and perhaps telling) anagram "OIL." The media turned the war into a "militainment." Bottom line, the news networks stood to make mass bucks by covering the war, by playing it up in red, white and blue sets, and playing on the public's need to escape from the usual TV fare. Exciting graphics were designed by people who worked in the computer game industry. Curiously the rule, "if it bleeds, it leads" was suspended because there was way, way too much gore to show the public, especially while they were eating dinner; and anyway it would not serve the purposes of the administration to show all those dead and dying Iraqis (especially the children) smeared with blood and gaping wounds, nor ironically would it serve to show the maimed American troops. In fact, it would be considered down right unpatriotic to do so. (You'll recall the flap over photos of flag-covered coffins of dead American soldiers.) The war had to be sanitized and made palpable. Consequently what prevailed was "best bomb" footage showing really awesome explosions--buildings blown to bits, cars flying into the air as Rumsfeld enthused over "shock and awe." The fact that the shock and awe resulted in human casualties was very much beside the point. As has been said, "In war the first casualty is truth."
The tactic of "embedding" reporters with the military was a stroke of genius by the Bush administration because it ensured one-sided and biased reporting on the war. Being embedded (not precisely to say "in bed with") the young, idealistic American soldiers for weeks at time, being supported and protected by those soldiers and sharing their experiences forced the reporters to identify with the soldiers and to assume a similar point of view.
Sadly, the media swallowed the administration's disinformation about the never-found weapons of mass destruction without noticing that the primary justification for the war was a sham. There was also no link between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden hated the B'athist regime of Saddam Hussein almost as much as he hates Israel and the United States since Saddam Hussein is about as Islamic as say Rupert Murdoch. And of course Saddam Hussein had no use for bin Laden since he would be uncontrollable and dangerous to his regime. So that rationale was also a sham. The idea that we would be doing the people of Iraq a favor by getting rid of Saddam Hussein was also a sham because (1) any invasion would bring more misery to the people than the continued presence of Hussein; and (2) the Iraqis would rather be ruled by a dictator than be occupied by a foreign power (which is the case for practically any country in the world, including our own).
And finally the idea that by invading Iraq we would be fighting the war on terrorism (which became the administration's johnny come lately justification for the war) is not only a sham and a lie, but is actually counterproductive. The invasion of Iraq has been a setback in the war on terrorism, and actually a diversion from it. It could be argued that Bush invaded Iraq because after the invasion of Afghanistan he had no plan to go after Al Qaeda and so created a diversion--a very costly and stupid diversion.
The mainstream media failed not only as news sources, but editorially, and as news analysts. Like Bush and the neocons in the White House, the news media failed to look beyond "best bombs" and "shock and awe" and "mission accomplished" to the aftermath. The media also failed to educate the public on just how absurd the idea is that you can force democracy onto a mostly Islamic country, especially a country artificially formed from such diverse elements as the Shi'a, the Sunni and the Kurds. Furthermore, because the Shi'a are in the majority, even if a democracy is formed, it may be voted out with an Iranian style theocracy the likely result--not exactly what the White House had in mind. Another likely result is another dictatorship following a bloody civil war.
Director Danny Schechter also points to how the press was controlled and manipulated during White House press conferences. Any reporter who asked a tough question of the press secretary or the president would not be called upon again. In order words, the press conferences were (and largely still are) propaganda opportunities for the Bush administration.
It should never be forgotten that however mainstream or "liberal" or enlightened the individual reporter may or may not be, it doesn't matter because the media is controlled by conglomerate interests (think Rupert Murdoch) that own the stations, magazines and newspapers, and those guys are conservative and want support for their man in the White House, and they will not long tolerate anything else.
Question: with the consolidation of media into fewer and fewer hands, are we witnessing the beginning of the death of a free press in the United States?
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
A nice piece of war-prep irony revealed in the DVD was the administration's disinclination to call the plan "Operation Iraqi Liberation" since that would have led to the unfortunate (and perhaps telling) anagram "OIL." The media turned the war into a "militainment." Bottom line, the news networks stood to make mass bucks by covering the war, by playing it up in red, white and blue sets, and playing on the public's need to escape from the usual TV fare. Exciting graphics were designed by people who worked in the computer game industry. Curiously the rule, "if it bleeds, it leads" was suspended because there was way, way too much gore to show the public, especially while they were eating dinner; and anyway it would not serve the purposes of the administration to show all those dead and dying Iraqis (especially the children) smeared with blood and gaping wounds, nor ironically would it serve to show the maimed American troops. In fact, it would be considered down right unpatriotic to do so. (You'll recall the flap over photos of flag-covered coffins of dead American soldiers.) The war had to be sanitized and made palpable. Consequently what prevailed was "best bomb" footage showing really awesome explosions--buildings blown to bits, cars flying into the air as Rumsfeld enthused over "shock and awe." The fact that the shock and awe resulted in human casualties was very much beside the point. As has been said, "In war the first casualty is truth."
The tactic of "embedding" reporters with the military was a stroke of genius by the Bush administration because it ensured one-sided and biased reporting on the war. Being embedded (not precisely to say "in bed with") the young, idealistic American soldiers for weeks at time, being supported and protected by those soldiers and sharing their experiences forced the reporters to identify with the soldiers and to assume a similar point of view.
Sadly, the media swallowed the administration's disinformation about the never-found weapons of mass destruction without noticing that the primary justification for the war was a sham. There was also no link between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden hated the B'athist regime of Saddam Hussein almost as much as he hates Israel and the United States since Saddam Hussein is about as Islamic as say Rupert Murdoch. And of course Saddam Hussein had no use for bin Laden since he would be uncontrollable and dangerous to his regime. So that rationale was also a sham. The idea that we would be doing the people of Iraq a favor by getting rid of Saddam Hussein was also a sham because (1) any invasion would bring more misery to the people than the continued presence of Hussein; and (2) the Iraqis would rather be ruled by a dictator than be occupied by a foreign power (which is the case for practically any country in the world, including our own).
And finally the idea that by invading Iraq we would be fighting the war on terrorism (which became the administration's johnny come lately justification for the war) is not only a sham and a lie, but is actually counterproductive. The invasion of Iraq has been a setback in the war on terrorism, and actually a diversion from it. It could be argued that Bush invaded Iraq because after the invasion of Afghanistan he had no plan to go after Al Qaeda and so created a diversion--a very costly and stupid diversion.
The mainstream media failed not only as news sources, but editorially, and as news analysts. Like Bush and the neocons in the White House, the news media failed to look beyond "best bombs" and "shock and awe" and "mission accomplished" to the aftermath. The media also failed to educate the public on just how absurd the idea is that you can force democracy onto a mostly Islamic country, especially a country artificially formed from such diverse elements as the Shi'a, the Sunni and the Kurds. Furthermore, because the Shi'a are in the majority, even if a democracy is formed, it may be voted out with an Iranian style theocracy the likely result--not exactly what the White House had in mind. Another likely result is another dictatorship following a bloody civil war.
Director Danny Schechter also points to how the press was controlled and manipulated during White House press conferences. Any reporter who asked a tough question of the press secretary or the president would not be called upon again. In order words, the press conferences were (and largely still are) propaganda opportunities for the Bush administration.
It should never be forgotten that however mainstream or "liberal" or enlightened the individual reporter may or may not be, it doesn't matter because the media is controlled by conglomerate interests (think Rupert Murdoch) that own the stations, magazines and newspapers, and those guys are conservative and want support for their man in the White House, and they will not long tolerate anything else.
Question: with the consolidation of media into fewer and fewer hands, are we witnessing the beginning of the death of a free press in the United States?
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Just because the war is over, does not mean we do not remain vigilant
The-Sarkologist17 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There are a few documentaries out there about the failure of the modern media however this particular one deals specifically with the lead up to the Iraq War. Personally, there is nothing really new here because we have seen the media being a mouth piece of governments for centuries. In fact, ever since people had begun writing, or speaking, governments have been looking for ways to control what is being said and what people actually hear. The difference between now and say, 18th century England, is that to be able to reach the millions of people with your message, vast amounts of capital are required to be able to launch a television station.
This is changing by the way with the development of the internet and with websites such as Youtube. However, governments, and corporations, are still trying to control these sources of information. In China you have what is called The Great Firewall of China, where only government sanctioned information can appear on the internet. Even here, in the developed west, governments are trying to sanction the internet through putting restrictions on ISPs as to what can be accessed. However, it is a fine line, as it always is. While we may object to censorship of access to sites that criticise a government, we somehow feel that it is necessary to prevent access to websites that exploit children.
Weapons of Mass Deception, though, deals explicitly with the standard media, both the newspapers and the television networks. While things are slowly changing, these two sources are still the main sources of information that we have, and while anybody with a little capital can set up and distribute a newspaper, vast amounts of capital are required to establish a television network, and even then, the barriers to entry, which include government licensing and access to bandwidth, are huge. More so, even if you want to get a piece shown on television, you need capital, as well as access to programming executives, to agree to actually show your piece. Even if you do manage to get it shown, people need to be able to have the television on to that specific channel at that specific time, to see it. With over two hundred channels to chose from, the chance of enough people actually seeing it is fairly slim.
The problem is that when such a traumatic event as 9/11 happens to a country, the people of that country are going to be angered and offended. It does not matter whether the television networks do not band together calling for war, because the population are going to do that anyway. Has was shown when a couple of peaceniks turned up at Ground Zero arguing for make love, not war, the amount of anger and the desire for revenge, was immense. The television networks really had no choice but to fall in line, particularly since if they did not, it was not the government, but the people that were going to respond. At that time the government did not need to do anything, because the people where doing it for them.
The Iraq War was different, and even then there was not much difference, because Sadam Hussein had always been demonised in the American Media since the Gulf War. He was public enemy number one (and in a way the American Government always needed a public enemy number one to distract the people from the corporate pillaging of the Earth) and it was almost expected that when such an event happened, people were going to point at one of the most hated people at the time, and that was Sadam. Let us ignore the fact that the government was looking for an excuse to go to war with him anyway (the war in Iraq was always on the agenda, it was simply that 9/11 gave them an excuse to go to war).
Mind you, we are still in the midst of a changing time as I write this. Information is slowly going online, and the media moguls are now finding that their control of information is slowly eroding. Governments (even in the West) are looking for ways to control this access to information, but organisations are fighting this, and attempted to prevent this control. Youtube provides lots of different channels, from people who argue for an extreme right-wing view of society to an extreme left-wing view. However, we, those of us who value freedom of speech, and the freedom to put our own views and thoughts up in the public sphere, need to continue to be vigilant and be ready to challenge any attempt to censor the internet.
This is changing by the way with the development of the internet and with websites such as Youtube. However, governments, and corporations, are still trying to control these sources of information. In China you have what is called The Great Firewall of China, where only government sanctioned information can appear on the internet. Even here, in the developed west, governments are trying to sanction the internet through putting restrictions on ISPs as to what can be accessed. However, it is a fine line, as it always is. While we may object to censorship of access to sites that criticise a government, we somehow feel that it is necessary to prevent access to websites that exploit children.
Weapons of Mass Deception, though, deals explicitly with the standard media, both the newspapers and the television networks. While things are slowly changing, these two sources are still the main sources of information that we have, and while anybody with a little capital can set up and distribute a newspaper, vast amounts of capital are required to establish a television network, and even then, the barriers to entry, which include government licensing and access to bandwidth, are huge. More so, even if you want to get a piece shown on television, you need capital, as well as access to programming executives, to agree to actually show your piece. Even if you do manage to get it shown, people need to be able to have the television on to that specific channel at that specific time, to see it. With over two hundred channels to chose from, the chance of enough people actually seeing it is fairly slim.
The problem is that when such a traumatic event as 9/11 happens to a country, the people of that country are going to be angered and offended. It does not matter whether the television networks do not band together calling for war, because the population are going to do that anyway. Has was shown when a couple of peaceniks turned up at Ground Zero arguing for make love, not war, the amount of anger and the desire for revenge, was immense. The television networks really had no choice but to fall in line, particularly since if they did not, it was not the government, but the people that were going to respond. At that time the government did not need to do anything, because the people where doing it for them.
The Iraq War was different, and even then there was not much difference, because Sadam Hussein had always been demonised in the American Media since the Gulf War. He was public enemy number one (and in a way the American Government always needed a public enemy number one to distract the people from the corporate pillaging of the Earth) and it was almost expected that when such an event happened, people were going to point at one of the most hated people at the time, and that was Sadam. Let us ignore the fact that the government was looking for an excuse to go to war with him anyway (the war in Iraq was always on the agenda, it was simply that 9/11 gave them an excuse to go to war).
Mind you, we are still in the midst of a changing time as I write this. Information is slowly going online, and the media moguls are now finding that their control of information is slowly eroding. Governments (even in the West) are looking for ways to control this access to information, but organisations are fighting this, and attempted to prevent this control. Youtube provides lots of different channels, from people who argue for an extreme right-wing view of society to an extreme left-wing view. However, we, those of us who value freedom of speech, and the freedom to put our own views and thoughts up in the public sphere, need to continue to be vigilant and be ready to challenge any attempt to censor the internet.
Seduced by news media that was seduced by the administration.
mikeroth18 February 2005
In his latest offering, newsroom veteran Danny Schechter takes a critical look at the media coverage of the war in Iraq and the lead-up to the war. Whether you are for or against the war itself, Schechter shows how the domestic media allowed itself to be seduced by the Bush administration into supporting the official government view of things.
While Al-Jazeera was frequently criticized for showing too much gore, the US news consumer was shown, with the aid of high-quality graphics just how our forces would be able to attack with "surgical precision". I guess we all love cartoons.
Danny Schechter is routinely compared to Michael Moore (of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame). Like Moore, Schechter is critical of the current administration and personally involves himself in the storytelling. Yet I found the narrative to be somewhat more coherent than the Michael Moore movies I've seen, and it didn't include the typical personal confrontation scenes for which Moore is famous.
This is a very interesting movie. I recommend it.
While Al-Jazeera was frequently criticized for showing too much gore, the US news consumer was shown, with the aid of high-quality graphics just how our forces would be able to attack with "surgical precision". I guess we all love cartoons.
Danny Schechter is routinely compared to Michael Moore (of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame). Like Moore, Schechter is critical of the current administration and personally involves himself in the storytelling. Yet I found the narrative to be somewhat more coherent than the Michael Moore movies I've seen, and it didn't include the typical personal confrontation scenes for which Moore is famous.
This is a very interesting movie. I recommend it.
WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception (Schecter Changed Title Apparently)
voiceofthepeople6 December 2004
A must see movie for those suspicious, disheartened and angry about Bush Incorporated's numerous ignominious and blatantly false reasons for the Iraq War. Danny Schecter shows raw news footage from around the world concerning the carefully orchestrated buildup and devastating aftermath ((at least 100,000 innocent Iraqis bombed to pieces (nearly half of Iraq is under age 15) according to Lancet Medical Journal)) of the Iraq war in progress that was never shown on American TV.
The filmmaker is an intense character who dissects the propaganda in a way that would make Sherlock Holmes proud. An 8 year veteran of ABC news, he displays an intellectual honesty that Michael Moore often disregards in lieu of prankster antagonism and partisan politics. A damning movie with damning indestructible facts. George Bush does not want you to see this movie. No one employed by the war machine does. Anyone who cares about America should see it today. Call your theater and demand it or look for it on DVD.
Yes, it is that powerful....10/10
The filmmaker is an intense character who dissects the propaganda in a way that would make Sherlock Holmes proud. An 8 year veteran of ABC news, he displays an intellectual honesty that Michael Moore often disregards in lieu of prankster antagonism and partisan politics. A damning movie with damning indestructible facts. George Bush does not want you to see this movie. No one employed by the war machine does. Anyone who cares about America should see it today. Call your theater and demand it or look for it on DVD.
Yes, it is that powerful....10/10
should be required viewing for all Americans
in_no_big_hurry19 May 2006
no matter what side of the political or social or economic spectrum you fall on, you need to watch this documentary. it should be required viewing for all Americans. so many people fail to realize the faults of today's modern media. too many people take what the TV news show tells them at face value, without realizing all the inner workings behind the camera. you probably really learn more nowadays from watching The Daily Show or The Colbert Report than from CBS, ABC, and most certainly FOX. at least the first two shows do journalism, even if it is mock journalism. most mainstream news outlets today simply do "coverage" and then get their people in studio to argue over talking points. if you are curious about how the news you get gets to you (how it is shaped, filtered, etc.) i would suggest viewing this. 10/10
worthwhile and informative, but not really that good a documentary
cherold12 September 2005
This movie tells you a lot about how the media worked hand in hand with the government to pump up the war, and does an excellent job of conveying information about how the government was able to control the media. So you have to admire it for that. But if you try and look at it objectively, not as a movie that says stuff you feel should be said but just as a movie to watch, it's not really that good. Cutesy stuff like the Apocalypse Now-themed opener really adds nothing to the movie and comes across as rather film-studentish. Danny Schechter lacks the personality that allows someone like Michael Moore to stand front and center in his films, and unlike Moor Schechter fails to create a story, but basically just throws a lot of information and talking heads at the viewer with occasional whimsical bits that don't come off that well.
The movie also has a preaching-to-the-faithful quality. While Moore (you really can't talk about a modern political documentary without comparing it with Moore's films) aims to tap into a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of power and government, thus trying to connect with people outside the left (I'm not sure if he's successful, but he does try), Schechter seems to just be handing out talking points to the left. There's good information that will help you out if you start arguing in a bar with a Republican, but there's nothing that would make a Republican bother watching this.
That's a shame, because this stuff is worth knowing, and if you are one of the faithful he's preaching you will be shocked and outraged, because it's actually even worse than you might think. But in the end it's just not much of a documentary.
The movie also has a preaching-to-the-faithful quality. While Moore (you really can't talk about a modern political documentary without comparing it with Moore's films) aims to tap into a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of power and government, thus trying to connect with people outside the left (I'm not sure if he's successful, but he does try), Schechter seems to just be handing out talking points to the left. There's good information that will help you out if you start arguing in a bar with a Republican, but there's nothing that would make a Republican bother watching this.
That's a shame, because this stuff is worth knowing, and if you are one of the faithful he's preaching you will be shocked and outraged, because it's actually even worse than you might think. But in the end it's just not much of a documentary.
The news media's relationship to the U.S. military
wscjr112 December 2004
This is a documentary about the American media and their relationship to the military. It's all about spin. Why were newspapers and TV news so strongly pro-war in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq? One obvious reason is that they believed what the Bush administration told them about weapons of mass destruction, but others are suggested.
Parts of this movie are quite chilling, such as the footage of an American tank firing on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, which resulted in death and injuries to journalists staying there. The film reports on some very interesting facts, such as the relationship between which news networks a person watches and how misinformed they are.
One thing this movie is NOT about is the brutality of Saddam Hussein, as was suggested by another reviewer. There are some graphic scenes of children in hospitals, but their injuries resulted from American bombing.
If you think that Bush's invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, or believe that Iraq collaborated with bin Laden in planning 9/11, then you will think this film is hopelessly biased to the left.
Parts of this movie are quite chilling, such as the footage of an American tank firing on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, which resulted in death and injuries to journalists staying there. The film reports on some very interesting facts, such as the relationship between which news networks a person watches and how misinformed they are.
One thing this movie is NOT about is the brutality of Saddam Hussein, as was suggested by another reviewer. There are some graphic scenes of children in hospitals, but their injuries resulted from American bombing.
If you think that Bush's invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, or believe that Iraq collaborated with bin Laden in planning 9/11, then you will think this film is hopelessly biased to the left.
This is an old and ugly homemade documentary
JurijFedorov20 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This topic is largely overlooked. Bush's White House lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to have an excuse to invade the country. The second point was that Iraq took part in 9/11, but this point is not even mentioned here. Democrats believed him as much as Republicans. NYT and Washington Post believed the story as much as WSJ and Fox News. So I guess no media post the war really wanted to make some huge documentary project attacking this journalism and political mistake as everyone believed the Bush lie so you'd be calling yourself a liar. Hence we get these smaller homemade projects. This is a homemade documentary by a left-wing journalist critical of neo-conservatives, news media pro war, and news media not taking his side. Unfortunately homemade in 2004 meant something way different than it does now with high quality Youtube videos. You didn't have a ton of digital shots you could edit together and most people didn't know how to edit. This guy clearly struggles a lot just editing shots together and it looks amateurish. There is some stock music used to spice it up. And overall the pacing is so fast that it doesn't quite measure up to better structured docs focused on clear line by line arguments. This is a doc that throws a lot at the screen hoping that there will be some coherent message in there anyhow which is true enough, but still less entertaining or educational than more expensive docs made in studios and not by cutting a bunch of VHS tapes together.
Personally I do think the Bush deception is a huge issue. But when people who hate Bush make docs or news segments about this it's important to not go overboard. Here it feels like he's just throwing everything at Fox News and Bush no matter how small. Unfortunately it detracts from the WMD lie message. It feels more like an attack on right-wing media than about the Iraq war. It gets stuck on attacking media and right-wing media overall instead of focusing on WMDs. How did they get it wrong? What did they get wrong? This is not clearly explained here. We don't hear anything about how the WMD claims were made, who made them, or what sources they used. That's the main element at play here! Yet it's too hard to study and explore and much easier to just create some flashy editing around a bunch of media clips. It feels like a high school anti-media project. Low IQ, but of course not wrong. We are all anti-war. So should I like this doc because it attacks bad media and I dislike bad media? I'm not sure, maybe to some degree? But the message is so popular now that it deserves a better doc. One I can learn something new from. And this doc is not about WMDs which is a shame. That's the issue media really fumbled. Instead he focuses on loose media statements about the Iraq war overall.
The small clips and stories are often very confusing because the narrator/editor just puts them in without explaining them clearly or doing calm interviews in a studio with the subject seen in the clips. It's interviews on the run with lots of noise and indirect points made by people who are just talking on the fly. With the stock music, weird sound effects, and low-tier cheap graphics it becomes way harder to understand as the effects and sounds are there to spice it up not to add to our understanding. It's the difference between good vs. Flashy editing. This is flashy lazy editing with moral arguments not always rooted in facts. Which is a shame.
Personally I do think the Bush deception is a huge issue. But when people who hate Bush make docs or news segments about this it's important to not go overboard. Here it feels like he's just throwing everything at Fox News and Bush no matter how small. Unfortunately it detracts from the WMD lie message. It feels more like an attack on right-wing media than about the Iraq war. It gets stuck on attacking media and right-wing media overall instead of focusing on WMDs. How did they get it wrong? What did they get wrong? This is not clearly explained here. We don't hear anything about how the WMD claims were made, who made them, or what sources they used. That's the main element at play here! Yet it's too hard to study and explore and much easier to just create some flashy editing around a bunch of media clips. It feels like a high school anti-media project. Low IQ, but of course not wrong. We are all anti-war. So should I like this doc because it attacks bad media and I dislike bad media? I'm not sure, maybe to some degree? But the message is so popular now that it deserves a better doc. One I can learn something new from. And this doc is not about WMDs which is a shame. That's the issue media really fumbled. Instead he focuses on loose media statements about the Iraq war overall.
The small clips and stories are often very confusing because the narrator/editor just puts them in without explaining them clearly or doing calm interviews in a studio with the subject seen in the clips. It's interviews on the run with lots of noise and indirect points made by people who are just talking on the fly. With the stock music, weird sound effects, and low-tier cheap graphics it becomes way harder to understand as the effects and sounds are there to spice it up not to add to our understanding. It's the difference between good vs. Flashy editing. This is flashy lazy editing with moral arguments not always rooted in facts. Which is a shame.
Scattershot documentary fails to convince or enlighten
American_Delight25 September 2009
Filmmaker Danny Schechter dismisses news coverage of the budding Iraq insurgency in 2003 as "a catalog of incidents" without context or analysis by war reporters. Ironically, Danny Schechter's documentary is so poorly organized that his film comes across as a "catalog of incidents" itself: first here's a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying something pro-war, now here's a CNN reporter criticizing the embedding of reporters within military units, and here's a graphic of a Time magazine cover that he Schecter finds questionable, now look at some Abu Ghraib photos. "WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception," has a hard time staying on any one topic longer than five minutes. The only common thread is that Schecter thinks all the Iraq war journalism was crummy war boosterism.
Schechter, the self-professed "news dissector," burnishes some selectively chosen evidence to support his argument. He cites the lack of coverage of the Feb. 15, 2003, world-wide peace protests as evidence that the media did not take the opposing views of war critics seriously. Fair enough, but most adults remember that, although most Americans supported the impending war at that time, the prospect of preemptive war was controversial and was being hotly debated in Congress, on talk shows, and among citizens. The idea that dissenting voices were muzzled in a country with as much free speech as we enjoy is absurd.
Ultimately, "WMD" breaks little new ground. Schechter's analysis would resonate with some Democrats, but it will ring utterly hollow with conservatives who know that the only real media bias is a liberal anti-war orientation from Vietnam right up to today. This film would change very few minds, if any. Documentaries like "Hearts and Minds" and "Farenheit 911," are seriously misguided politically, but they contain far more emotional power and narrative appeal than this effort.
A stronger approach would have been for Schechter to focus in on one particular aspect of Iraq war journalism, such as coverage of weapons of mass destruction. The misleading title certainly indicated that would be the focus. The U.S. ultimately concluded that Sadam maintained weapons programs for a "surge capacity," but we did not find WMD stockpiles. This was a serious mistake that all countries (even France, Egypt, and Iraq itself believed Sadam had WMDs!) need to examine about themselves, their intelligence services, their politicians, and yes, their journalists. The documentary would have been far more enlightening if Schechter stuck to "dissecting" the WMD story.
Schechter, the self-professed "news dissector," burnishes some selectively chosen evidence to support his argument. He cites the lack of coverage of the Feb. 15, 2003, world-wide peace protests as evidence that the media did not take the opposing views of war critics seriously. Fair enough, but most adults remember that, although most Americans supported the impending war at that time, the prospect of preemptive war was controversial and was being hotly debated in Congress, on talk shows, and among citizens. The idea that dissenting voices were muzzled in a country with as much free speech as we enjoy is absurd.
Ultimately, "WMD" breaks little new ground. Schechter's analysis would resonate with some Democrats, but it will ring utterly hollow with conservatives who know that the only real media bias is a liberal anti-war orientation from Vietnam right up to today. This film would change very few minds, if any. Documentaries like "Hearts and Minds" and "Farenheit 911," are seriously misguided politically, but they contain far more emotional power and narrative appeal than this effort.
A stronger approach would have been for Schechter to focus in on one particular aspect of Iraq war journalism, such as coverage of weapons of mass destruction. The misleading title certainly indicated that would be the focus. The U.S. ultimately concluded that Sadam maintained weapons programs for a "surge capacity," but we did not find WMD stockpiles. This was a serious mistake that all countries (even France, Egypt, and Iraq itself believed Sadam had WMDs!) need to examine about themselves, their intelligence services, their politicians, and yes, their journalists. The documentary would have been far more enlightening if Schechter stuck to "dissecting" the WMD story.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
