Haditha and Jamil Should Lead to Media Reform

The conduct of the U.S. media in the Haditha and the Jamil Hussein stories should be seen as central case studies of, either, how the major media continued to decline or of how it regenerated itself. Present indicators lean to the former, but surely some good minds see the opportunity for the latter.

I’ll return to Jamil Hussein, after Haditha, but first a word from Rick Moran (who, by the way, has favored withdrawal from Iraq): (Well worth reading the whole Moran post.)

It does little good to point out that the real story is not whether Hussein exists but rather whether the information he was a confirming source for in 61 stories is true or false. That’s because the left doesn’t seem interested in whether or not the news from Iraq is real or imagined. “Fake but accurate” is fine with them.

A prime example of what Moran characterizes as “triumphalism” by liberal and left-wing press and bloggers can be seen in Editor & Publisher’s cherry picking of conservative blogs’ reaction to the surprise existence of Jamil Hussein, totally ignoring the more important problems with his information being unsupported.

As I wrote about Haditha:

To the extent that the prosecutors’ case relies upon the Iraqi stringers and suspect and contradictory “witnesses” used by U.S. media, their case will be both weak and will probably expose the grave shortcomings of the U.S. media’s operations in the Iraq war zone…”

Based upon these suspect sources, U.S. media largely condemned the Marines involved, and most attached that to their meme of opposition to the U.S. in Iraq.

As today’s San Diego Union Tribune update on Haditha is sub-headlined, “Experts say it could change the Marines.” I’d say, that alone, changing the most successful fighting force on earth, is a mighty significant impact of the Haditha charges. I’d also say that, conversely, it may and should change the media.

I don’t know how deeply the San Diego Union-Tribune has yet delved into the disc of the prosecution’s 10,000 pages of evidence that it obtained from a defense attorney (although I asked the reporter of today’s article, and will update this post if I get a response). Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune report, however, indicates that the case may be on the weak side:

… there is apparently little or no forensic evidence connecting the victims' wounds to the weapons the Marines carried.
Even if the forensic evidence existed, it might be hard to establish specific links to particular weapons because the Marine Corps didn't collect the defendants' rifles, pistols and other weaponry until months after the killings.
Investigators do have photos and video footage showing the shrouded bodies of some victims and blood stains on the walls of at least one home involved in the incident. They also interviewed relatives and neighbors of the victims, including people who said they witnessed the killings.
But several defense attorneys say the prosecution has not secured confessions or other self-incriminating statements from any of the Haditha suspects.
The lawyers say their clients followed the military's rules of engagement by countering insurgents who fired at them from nearby homes after the bomb detonated. They describe the civilians' deaths as tragedies, not crimes.

The self-governance of the Associated Press and of American media is seriously lacking in independent checks. It’s role, and fourth estate presumptions, are too central to – literally – America’s survival and interests for this to continue.

This morning’s New York Times describes the rise of shareholder influence upon Boards of Directors of public corporations.

“Activist shareholders have a power and audience beyond what they’ve ever enjoyed,” said Howard Steinberg, a lawyer who advises corporate boards and deal makers. “They’re developing a credible track record, and as a result, more and more managers are forced to engage with them. Activists’ time has come.”
Since July, activists have pressed successfully to push out chief executives at Pfizer and Sovereign Bank. Institutional investors and mutual funds have set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in underperforming companies with the intention of demanding new board seats or alternative strategies.
Much of that newfound influence is owed to recent legal changes and heightened attention to issues like executive compensation. But it also draws on the fact that many activists have now amassed the wealth, knowledge and networks critical for success.
“For years these guys were seen as politically motivated oddballs or annoying attention seekers,” said Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, a research group that rates corporate governance practices. “Now some of those same people control hundreds of millions of dollars and have been around longer than many C.E.O.’s”

Today’s New York Sun describes the shocking ignorance of the Jamil Hussein veracity problems by directors on the Associated Press board, who themselves are newspaper editors:

When reached yesterday, two of the AP's board members said they were unaware of the controversy surrounding Mr. Hussein.
The editor and publisher of the Citizen Tribune in Morristown, Tenn., R. Jack Fishman yesterday said, "This has not come up on my windshield. I can assure you I don't have any emails or phone calls from the board on this. I am not in the loop on this one."
The president and publisher of the Gazette Company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, yesterday said, "I really don't know what you're talking about," when asked about the mysterious police captain. "I am unfamiliar with this."

My fellow blogger, Mitch Langbert (*see below bio), is a business prof at my undergrad alma mater, Brooklyn College. Formerly, Langbert had a successful career in private enterprise. His publications and citations fill several impressive pages. This morning, he emailed me (paralleling my on and offline comments):

Just as publicly traded companies now must name accounting experts on audit committees and disclose their audit committees' independence under the SEC's Sarbanes Oxley regulations, perhaps we need a Media Sarbanes Oxley Act that would require that media companies disclose the extent to which their boards of directors have implemented control systems that monitor irresponsible and fraudulent reporting. Fraud problems have occurred in at the New Republic, New York Times and CBS as well as AP. Perhaps it is time for a media version of Sarbannes Oxley to protect the public from the media's and newspaper deception and fraud run amok. Just as with Enron and Worldcom in the corporate world today's media and newspapers suffer from conflicts of interest and ineptly designed control systems.

Such a defender of Board of Director prerogatives as corporate law professor Steve Bainbridge says:

... At the core of the board’s service role is providing advice and counsel to the senior management team, especially the CEO. At the intersection of the board’s service and monitoring roles is the provision of alternative points of view.

If we can’t even depend upon media boards -- especially when drawn from the ranks of leading professionals who in turn have direct responsibilities to their customers – to even be aware of serious defects in the products and governance in their charge, it’s time for media boards to institute independent auditors of reporting who report to them, and annual statements published of the reports and investigations.

* Mitchell Langbert is Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Professor Langbert received a BA from Sarah Lawrence College, MBA from UCLA and a Ph.D. in industrial relations from the Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He has previously worked for Johnson and Johnson, Inco Limited and the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee staff.
Also see http://www.mitchell-langbert.com/ for an extended CV.