My latest New Matilda column discusses the structural inability of the mainstream press to hold war governments to account:
The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, was upset last week after the routing of the Republican Party in the US mid-term elections and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — followed by news that he, along with others in the Bush cabal, may soon face a war crimes tribunal. ”˜There is much tragedy in this,’ he wrote, but assured his readers that nothing much would change in US policy towards Iraq. A few days later, Bush signalled that change would occur soon. For the umpteenth time, Sheridan’s direct line to the White House must have been faulty.
[The Australian’s Editor-at-Large] Paul Kelly told me in July 2006 that, although he opposed the Iraq war in 2003 on ”˜strategic’ grounds, critics should be careful not to blame the American intervention for the current chaos. ”˜There are risks in mounting that sort of argument ”¦ into an excuse or an apology for the present insurgency in terrorism,’ he said. Like his Murdoch colleagues, Kelly seemed incapable of interpreting events outside an ”˜us and them’ dichotomy. Was Kelly seriously suggesting that opposing the war on anything other than strategic grounds was giving comfort to terrorists?
My New Matilda archive is here.