A MEDIA DISGRACE

Nothing could better explain why this publication exists than the
shocking neglect that the big media has shown toward the CIA's new
contra-cocaine report.

The report by the CIA's inspector general described how the Reagan
administration tolerated cocaine trafficking into the United States
under the umbrella of the contra war in Nicaragua during the 1980s.
The report established that cocaine smugglers penetrated the contra
operation at all levels -- and that the CIA hid the evidence.

Rarely, if ever, has a U.S. agency made such a devastating set of
admissions about its own activities. The CIA's inspector general
effectively confirmed the contra-cocaine allegations which the
Reagan-Bush administrations had denied for more than a decade.

Yet, the readers of America's major dailies will know little of this
history. The document was released onto the CIA's Internet site on the
afternoon of Oct. 8. But the admission of a serious crime of state
drew barely a yawn from the national press.

The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- two papers which had
long pooh-poohed the contra-cocaine charges -- ignored the inspector
general’s findings altogether.

Two days later, The New York Times kissed off the CIA's findings in a
brief story on page A5, below the fold. It noted, accurately, that the
report was "blunt and often critical" and that the CIA "repeatedly
ignored or failed to investigate allegations of drug trafficking by"
the contras. [NYT, Oct 10, 1998]

But the reality detailed in the report was much worse. The CIA had
confirmed many of the allegations and withheld the evidence from both
law enforcement and Congress.

The nation's dominant newspapers seemed to have finally reached the
absurd juncture where the CIA was admitting guilt on a serious
offense, but the major news outlets were determined to protect the
CIA's image.

In one strange way, however, the editorial decisions made sense.
Today, more senior journalists in the big media have a career interest
in down-playing contra crimes than do the current senior officials at
the CIA.

Many of the CIA top brass responsible for the contra operation are
long gone, but many of today’s star reporters rose to prominence by
going along with the propaganda fed to them by the Reagan-Bush
administrations.

Since the contra-cocaine charges were first raised in the mid-1980s,
the major newspapers have been consistent in dismissing the
allegations. When Sen. John Kerry confirmed many of the charges in a
1989 Senate report, his findings were buried deep inside the big
papers -- and he was ridiculed as a “randy conspiracy buff.”

When Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series revived the scanda in 1996,
the major media lashed out at him and the black community for not
accepting the long-standing conventional wisdom.

Since then, the big papers have grudgingly admitted some substance to
the charges, but the admissions are quickly forgotten -- or even reversed.

When the outlines of the new CIA report became known over the summer,
The New York Times admitted that the CIA had found evidence of
widespread contra drug smuggling, with about 50 contras and allied
entities implicated in the cocaine trade. [NYT, July 17, 1998]

But it was a fleeting admission. On Sept. 27, when the Times published
a combined review of Gary Webb's Dark Alliance book and a second book,
Whiteout, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, the old
conventional wisdom was back in place.

Reviewer James Adams termed the two books "unsatisfactory" and mocked
their suggestions of a CIA cover-up of contra-cocaine crimes as
"laughable."

Adams's review then misstated what was already known about the
upcoming CIA report. “It matters little,” Adams wrote, “that the CIA's
own inspector general said he found no evidence to support allegations
of agency involvement in or knowledge of the drug trafficking in the
United States."

Even based on the Times’ own mild admissions, the summary wasn’t true.
Still, the Times published it, discrediting the work of other
journalists who had seriously addressed a tough story.

When the CIA report was released on Oct. 8, it became even clearer how
wrong Adams’s review had been. As for the “laughable” cover-up, a CIA
station chief explained the thinking: “There was derogatory stuff
[about the contras], but we were going to play with these guys,” that
message had been delivered from CIA director William J. Casey and
other senior officials.

But why won’t the Times and other big newspapers just “come clean” now
that the facts are so overwhelming? The reason seems to be that they
don’t have to. The editors know that no one can or will hold them
accountable, as long as they stick together. If the public doesn’t
know how devastating the CIA’s admissions were, then no one will know
how poorly the major newspapers performed.

The Times, which likes to call itself “the newspapers of record,”
apparently believes that it controls -- and can manipulate -- that
record. If anything, the behavior of the Post and the Los Angeles
Times has been worse.

This betrayal of the public trust is one of the principal reasons this
publication exists. Our goal is simple: it is to write an honest first
draft of our recent history.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry