Was it a tempest in a teapot or more evidence of just how nasty media people can be to each other when ideological tempers and self-righteousness cloud their judgment in a time of impending war?

It began with watches. According to Editor and Publisher: ''Two prominent Arab journalists based in London have confirmed a New York Daily News column alleging that Saudi Arabian officials have given expensive watches, including Rolexes, to Western reporters.

"The Arab newsmen did not identify any of the reporters who might have accepted the gifts, and neither did Zev Chafets, the columnist who made the allegations o­n Dec 4."

Chafets characterised the time-honored practice of gift giving in the Arab world as an attempt to buy favorable coverage, charging "Look at the coverage of the kingdom the last 10 years and see which reporters failed to notice they were in a fascist theocracy and decide for yourself."

Now Chafets might not be the most "objective" journalist to rely o­n to recognise fascist theocratic tendencies. A hawkish pro-Israeli columnist, he o­nce worked for the Begin government. Journalism, as they say, has been "very, very good for him," and he now boasts top-level sources while reporting in the press what he used to spin the press to cover.


War rewards

But there is a larger question: Does war bring rewards for media? The answer is decidedly affirmative. It is o­n the front lines that careers are made, media prizes won, and images shaped.

War stokes ratings and grabs audience attention. That translates into higher profits and hefty raises for those who score "under fire." When you are in the right place at the right time, there will be books to write and speaking tours to promote them. You can buy yourself a lot of watches that way.

We live in an age of the corporate media merger but the merger that has been noticed least is the most obvious - the merger of interests between the military and media organisations. In today's Pentagon, the hymn du jour is "get o­n board, little children, get o­n board."

Many journalists are now jockeying to do so. The Pentagon is weighing decisions about which media outlets to allow to "embed" themselves with the troops. Journalists literally must lobby in person for placement, as the New York Observer recently reported: "One bureau chief who pleaded her case in person, Associated Press Washington bureau chief Sandy Johnson, said that in her sit-down, she 'talked about AP's role in the media world.'"

At what point will "embeds" become "in-beds?" Veteran correspondent Robert Fisk argues that there is already a symbiotic relationship in place that gives official sources the ability to spin stories under the cloak of anonymity.

"Take Eric Schmitt in The New York Times a week ago," Fisk writes in his latest column. "He wrote a story about America's decision to confront countries that sponsor terrorism. And his sources? 'Senior defense officials,' 'administration officials,' 'some American intelligence officials,' 'the officials', 'officials,' 'military officials,' 'terrorist experts,' and 'defense officials.' Why not just let the Pentagon write its own reports in The New York Times?"

At the same time, as the winds of public opinion shift, as protest mounts and more dissenting voices are heard, editorial writers respond even when hard news hacks do not.

Editor & Publisher reports "although newspaper opinions o­nce appeared virtually monolithic in support of an attack o­n Iraq, editorials from many of America's leading newspapers are now among the voices questioning the wisdom of, or timetable for, the possible conflict.

"An E&P survey of war-related editorials published by 37 of the nation's top 50 daily newspapers this month reveals that their views fall into three general clusters: a quick-to-war camp advocating forcefully disarming (Saddam)Hussein sooner rather than later; a skeptical majority urging President Bush to give UN weapons inspections a real chance to work before ordering military action (more than two-thirds of the papers that published editorials now land in this category); and a third group of about a dozen papers that hedge their views or can't seem to quite make up their mind."

Unnecessary war

Significantly, this trade publication went outside "the trade" to ask Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, (which revealed what the press had not reported about the Vietnam War,) what he thinks of the current coverage.

"They are not doing the job that should be done o­n informing themselves, Congress, and the public o­n the decision-making process, the dissenting positions within the government, and the real considerations in the decision," said Ellsberg.

"This government, like in Vietnam, is lying us into a war. Like Vietnam, it's a reckless, unnecessary war, where the risks greatly outweigh any possible benefits.

"I'd make this argument to insiders: Don't do what I did. Don't keep your mouth shut when you know people are being lied to. Tell the truth before the bombs are falling, while there's still a chance to do something about it." - GVNN

News Dissector Danny Schechter writes a daily weblog o­n media coverage for Mediachannel.org. He is the author of 'Media Wars; NEWS At a Time of Terror'.