핵심요약

• 2003년 이라크 전쟁 직전 미국 언론은 부시 행정부에 대한 비판을 23년 후의 이란 갈등 보도와 비교할 때 부족했습니다.
• 트럼프 행정부는 전쟁 정당화를 대규모로 홍보할 필요가 없었으며, 이는 23년 전과 다른 미디어 환경 때문입니다.
• 이라크 전쟁과 이란 갈등은 지상군 동원 여부와 미디어 환경에서 차이를 보입니다.
• 이란과 미국의 최근 합의는 호르무즈 해협 재개항을 포함하며, 여전히 불안정합니다.

도입

이 기사는 미국 언론이 전쟁 보도에서 어떻게 변화했는지에 대한 중요한 통찰을 제공합니다. 투자자들에게는 미디어 환경이 어떻게 지정학적 사건에 영향을 미치는지 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 특히 중동 지역의 불안정성이 글로벌 시장에 미치는 영향을 분석하는 데 유용한 자료입니다.

본문 1: 미디어 환경의 변화와 전쟁 보도

2003년 이라크 전쟁 직전 미국 언론은 부시 행정부의 주장에 대해 충분한 검증을 하지 못했습니다. 이는 23년 후의 이란 갈등 보도와 비교할 때 명확히 드러납니다. 트럼프 행정부는 전쟁 정당화를 대규모로 홍보할 필요가 없었으며, 이는 미디어 환경의 변화 때문입니다. 이는 투자자들에게 미디어 환경이 어떻게 지정학적 사건에 영향을 미치는지 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

본문 2: 이라크 전쟁과 이란 갈등의 차이

이라크 전쟁과 이란 갈등은 지상군 동원 여부와 미디어 환경에서 차이를 보입니다. 이란 갈등은 지상군을 동원한 전쟁이 아니며, 이는 글로벌 시장에 미치는 영향을 다르게 만듭니다. 또한, 이란과 미국의 최근 합의는 호르무즈 해협 재개항을 포함하며, 이는 에너지 시장에 중요한 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

결론

이 기사는 미국 언론이 전쟁 보도에서 어떻게 변화했는지에 대한 중요한 통찰을 제공합니다. 투자자들에게는 미디어 환경이 어떻게 지정학적 사건에 영향을 미치는지 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 향후 중동 지역의 불안정성이 글로벌 시장에 미치는 영향을 지속적으로 모니터링하는 것이 중요합니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi0AFBVV95cUxNSkN0ODBablZKYkE3Mk92M2gteFQ5MzVGNVZDWXlXLVZoRUVUN29GZXEwTE5weGxZaDVRT0FJajlXaTZKY0VwM1BZazdXWVBtTkN0UnJmanRnTm1jN2w3b2hHb29sOENWTW5VdGpSZUZKcWlJT2dlcEZfNV9EVDItSkxTeGdjUFVObVd6SGN6Ym5jaUlVdDc1RHVnQWU2NklzMHJMYU1jcG9nLVRVcm1SME9UWjdXQXVOQWl1Vm8yODBna0VIcDJZWFZUbzdfTS1L?oc=5

The press corps failed badly in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq. Was coverage of the Iran war any better? - Columbia Journalism Review

Sign up for the daily CJR newsletter .

Stepping up to the podium to make the case for war, the president of the United States claimed there was “a direct threat to this country.” He spoke of the enemy’s “long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes.” He said he would “not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” And he promised that once the enemy autocrat was removed, the US would “help that nation to build a just government after decades of brutal dictatorship.”

That was George W. Bush, speaking a couple of weeks before the US invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. In the haze of compulsory patriotism that followed the 9/11 attacks, the American press is widely regarded as having failed to hold the Bush administration accountable as it raced toward regime change in the Middle East. “Overall and in the main, there’s no question that we didn’t do a good job,” Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, told Bill Moyers in a 2007 PBS documentary , Buying the War .

Many people will have heard an echo of Bush’s justification—talk of a “direct threat,” nuclear weapons, regime change—in Donald Trump’s announcement , twenty-three years later on February 28, that the US and Israel had decided to attack Iran. Last week, Washington and Tehran cosigned a memorandum of understanding for the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts.” The agreement—which has seemingly benefited Iran—still appears shaky at the time of writing, but it clears the way for, among other things, reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Trump, unable to bend reality to his will, sued for peace.

The conflicts in Iraq and Iran are, of course, different in as many ways as they are similar. Iran has not been a boots-on-the-ground situation, and we live in a very different political and media reality now. The Trump administration barely felt the need to propagandize its case for war to the American public; a largely friendly, right-wing media sphere is ready to parrot whatever narrative the president favors on any given day. (Influential parts of the Murdoch empire also supported Trump’s war, as I wrote in March .)

But I’ve been thinking recently: How will historians evaluate the press’s performance on the Iran war? Under Trump, a president whose daily pronouncements are full of lies that range from the baffling to the despicable , the mainstream press has seemed to do a better job of questioning administration officials’ motivations for the Iran war than it did in the run-up to Iraq. Major outlets highlighted how officials constantly changed their stories , as well as Trump’s shifting aims for the conflict. In April, an article in the New York Times by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman claimed to chart the behind-the-scenes events that led to Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, detailing the role of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, in pushing for war. (That information, a Times spokesperson told me over the weekend, was unearthed by Haberman and Swan while on book leave—for Regime Change , which will be released this week—but was shared with Times editors so it could be “published as soon as the information was confirmed and within six weeks of the war beginning.”)

There has also been a good amount of attention paid to the war’s consequences at home, including how it has fractured Trump’s MAGA base , as well as the costs to the American economy —although I always want more coverage that humanizes economic distress. But Trump’s assertion, made without evidence, that Iran posed a “direct threat” to Americans was often forgotten once the war was underway. And there was pretty minimal scrutiny of the legality of the president striking Iran without first seeking congressional approval, which Bush received before using force against Iraq.

What about the humanitarian fallout in the region? We’ve seen some outstanding investigative work, led by the Times , into the US Tomahawk missile strike on an elementary school in Minab that is believed to have killed at least a hundred and seventy-five people, most of them children. I suspect this incident—and the reporting around it—will be remembered as one of the defining moments of the war. But the administration has still not accepted responsibility for the strike, which perhaps indicates that White House correspondents have not pushed hard enough for answers and accountability. In southern Lebanon, where the war spread, there has been some affecting reporting on the ground . Christina Goldbaum, also of the Times , was on the scene when mourners buried their dead during a brief lull in Israeli bombing in April, in a graveyard strewn with “rebar and chunks of concrete.” ( Zahra Hankir wrote about the press in Lebanon for CJR.) According to Lebanese health officials, about four thousand people have been killed by Israeli strikes since the conflict began. With notable exceptions, most US newsrooms don’t seem to have paid close enough attention to their deaths—or the legacies they leave behind.

One complication for international outlets has been the difficulty of reporting with genuine freedom from inside Iran. As Sebastian Walker, a filmmaker, told my colleague Susie Banikarim , journalists reporting in the country must accept that Iranian authorities “ultimately make the final decision on what you can do.” This has undoubtedly constrained coverage. Meanwhile, at times, the media has seemed unable to resist a Hollywood-friendly military-giveaway story, like the heavily briefed mission—described as “daring” and “dramatic” and plastered on newspaper front pages—to rescue a downed US airman, which I wrote about a couple of months back , highlighting the press’s tendency toward “selective empathy.” ( Deadline reports that the tale is being adapted for the big screen and will be directed, predictably, by Michael Bay.) But this was an outlier amid lots of sober, more professional coverage.

Does this mean— whisper it —that overall the press has had a “good” war, at least compared with the debacle of the run-up to Iraq? I’m still making up my mind. And I’m curious what CJR’s readers think about this—so do respond to this email or send me a note if you’d like to share your thoughts.

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today .

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi0AFBVV95cUxNSkN0ODBablZKYkE3Mk92M2gteFQ5MzVGNVZDWXlXLVZoRUVUN29GZXEwTE5weGxZaDVRT0FJajlXaTZKY0VwM1BZazdXWVBtTkN0UnJmanRnTm1jN2w3b2hHb29sOENWTW5VdGpSZUZKcWlJT2dlcEZfNV9EVDItSkxTeGdjUFVObVd6SGN6Ym5jaUlVdDc1RHVnQWU2NklzMHJMYU1jcG9nLVRVcm1SME9UWjdXQXVOQWl1Vm8yODBna0VIcDJZWFZUbzdfTS1L?oc=5