The Media Filter

We are inundated by information. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and, of course, the Internet, shovel out so much data that it’s impossible for us to keep up. We rely on news organizations to discern what’s important and summarize information for us. We expect news professionals to serve a higher calling by distilling and disclosing the significant facts related to a subject, though such facts may damage the political causes that reporters may favor.

News has similarities to my profession. Accountants are duty-bound to render services to their clients, but their primary obligation is to the public and to the integrity of the financial statements. And yes, there have been some notable failures in recent years when CPA’s have forgotten or deliberately ignored the values that they profess.

Today the government declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on “Trends in Global Terrorism”. The San Francisco Chronicle headline was “Intelligence agencies say Iraq conflict encourages the global jihadist movement” The New York Times blared “Waging the War on Terror: Report Belies Optimistic View” and USA Today’s contribution was:


If these headlines indeed captured the essence of the intelligence estimate, then that would seem to be another nail in the coffin of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Not only was the Iraqi democracy project failing, but the United States has been placed in greater danger, not less, because of the Iraq invasion. So I decided to read the report for myself. It begins:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

Two rhetorical questions: 1) Does the bleakness of the headlines match the topic sentence of the lead paragraph? 2) Does the lead paragraph tell us anything we didn’t already know?

The report does discuss the growth in the number of jihadists and how the Iraq war has “cultivat[ed] supporters for the global jihadist movement.” However, it also points out ways that terrorism can be defeated, including succeeding in Iraq, instilling greater awareness how the victims of violence are other Muslims, and publicizing the implications of living under shari’a law if the terrorists win.

Two paragraphs in the second half of the report merit further comment. Keep in mind the intelligence estimate is dated April, 2006:

The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups…

Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

Now that Zarqawi has been killed, the Intelligence Estimate says that, at least for a time, the threat to US interests should be “less serious”.

Question for the professional news organizations: why couldn’t the headline have been “Death of Zarqawi Lessens Terrorist Threat”? But if you disbelieve this part of the assessment, why do you assign such credibility to other conclusions, such as “the Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists”?

I think we know the answer. © 2006 Stephen Yuen