Media Narrative & Reality--Thank Goodness for the Bloggers

At this point in the presidential campaign, John McCain is seemingly a side show to Barack Obama's celebrity-like status in the media's ongoing narrative. This seems to be to McCain's benefit. While everyone on the network and cable news awaits an Obama gaff overseas - something on which they can finally, truly pounce - it seems as though a serious McCain error was almost missed here at home (if not only by the mainstream media). Were it not for a few citizen journalists and unaffiliated bloggers, McCain's mistake might have gone unnoticed.

As Seth Colter Walls reported in the Huffington Post, "During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the 'surge strategy' in Iraq." As per the transcript:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

Senator McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

No actually it is not a matter of history. In fact, the false depiction here is McCain's, not Obama's. According to Alan Ackermann, on his Blog Attackermann, "[MacFarland], was commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, based in Ramadi in 2006 and early 2007 and is a key figure in embracing the Anbar Awakening before it even had that name." MacFarland explained exactly what was happening in Anbar between the Sunnis and al Qa'ida in an interview with Pam Hess of UPI, (about two months before Bush even decided on the surge). The interview is available in entirety on the United States Department of Defense website, here. The following is the excerpt from which Ackermann is basing his assessment:

Pam Hess: This is Pam Hess with United Press International. You said that violence is down 25 percent. Could you put numbers on that? I don't know that we know specifically what you all are doing out there.

And also, I've heard recently from someone who visited Ramadi and Anbar in general is that there is a lot of Sunni insurgent and al Qaeda violence between the two groups, but that the al Qaeda side seems to be exacting a heavy toll. They're killing a lot of the Sunnis that are opposing them now.

Col. Macfarland: Okay. Thanks, Pam.

Well, first of all, attacks have dropped from about 20 a day to more like 15 a day. It was actually a little bit lower than that before Ramadan. We had a little bit of a surge, an uptick since Ramadan began, and we'll wait to see how that levels out here in the next few days. But it has been on an overall downward trend.

With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.

Beyond this incontrovertible interview comes even more evidence as pointed out by Mark Lynch on his Blog, Abu Aardvark. In his military review titled, "Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point," Col. MacFarland wrote a summary of his experiences in Anbar Province and how they helped turn the war in the Sunni parts of Iraq, which started the "Anbar Awakening." This is official military history. According to Ilan Goldenberg, "The time frame he discusses in his essay is June 2006 through February 2007. It should further be noted that the first "surge" of troops arrived just as MacFarland and his men redeployed out of Anbar."

What is especially notable in all of this is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the "Awakening," and whether or not it was caused by the surge. In a speech given to the American Enterprise Institute with fellow Senator, Joseph Lieberman, on January 5, 2007, McCain said:

"Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region. ... But it's important, as I said in my opening remarks, that this troop surge be significant and sustained."

Hmmm. So what's the big deal you might ask? Well beyond the fact that John McCain lied, or forgot, or whatever, it has been clear that he has based the crux of his campaign around the idea that he knows best when it comes to Iraq. McCain's military experience somehow directly translates into good policy judgement and his primary example is his backing of the surge. But politicians will do as politicians do. Ultimately it is the media's job to catch them when they do, do. Whether rhetoric, mis-truths, or mistakes, the role of the press is to examine and identify. In this instance, that did not initially occur. Given the media's dominant narrative which has been to leave McCain's comments about Iraq unquestioned, that is not surprising.

One need not look any farther than the wide scale response that Wes Clark received when he challenged McCain's policy expertise and judgement to see this narrative in action:

"He [John McCain] has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility... because in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. He hasn’t made the calls."

Clark's comments did not coincide with the media narrative about presidential candidate McCain. Shortly after he spoke these words, every major news agency from CNN which said, Wes Clark's comments are the "lowest form of politics," to Fox News which reported, "Clark seems to have attacked McCain's service," added spin to the narrative.

The point was missed because it didn't coincide with the ongoing narrative. After all, how could Wes Clark try to paint a picture out side the frame?

So again, here and now, when CBS initially decided to not show this part of McCain's interview, it did so, perhaps, to maintain this ongoing narrative. Were it not for bloggers like Ilan Goldberg, Seth Colter Walls, and Marc Lynch, would Kieth Olberman have made his report? Would CBS eventually provide the full transcript and interview on their website?

Either way you look at it, the American public is not getting the whole story without the help of unaffiliated journalists. Without the vigilance of citizen bloggers the mainstream media would be free to dictate the story with whatever coverage they deem fit. In a time when there are an ever dwindling number of corporations owning these media outlets, and the airwaves are ever more allocated to these large corporate entities, it is critical that these journalists are out there, chasing the true story.