The he said/she said nature of journalism mixed with the ability to color a story in such a way that it misleads is suggested by a NYT article today about white phosphorus use in Falluja, which appears from my reading to be a somewhat cloudy subject. Still, the cloudy nature (though some would dispute that) is not really suggested by the beginning of the piece:
Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.
This is the lede, and it rubbed me the wrong way. White phosphorus is a chemical, and it does seem to some extent at least that there is clear evidence that it was used as a weapon. In fact, the official story is what seems to be "clearly incorrect," given the first claim was that it was not used at all.
But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.
In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.
It was used "directly against Iraqi insurgents." In fact, as I noted briefly last week, a military publication noted as much. And, in fact in the past the Pentagon labeled Iraqi use of the substance as chemical:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL
Though the NYT article suggested the changing nature of the official story, it did not discuss such matters. In fact, following the lede that forthrightly accused the private group of being wrong, it used a he said/she said approach that again put the onus on the Italians (second paragraph):
The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.
So, it seems the problem is just public relations, though the more questioning reader (realistic reader?) would argue that the problem was that the government wanted to cover up a questionable or at best likely to be used by the other side (anti-administration as much as the enemy, though they mix the two up a lot) practice. As some replies to a criticism of the BBC noted, the government really does not have the benefit of the doubt any more. Anyway, the latter piece can be used to see the "other side" of the debate. [One issue addressed is the "noncombatants" issue.]
Back to the lede paragraph. Though I admit not to fully understand the intricacies of the matter, the problem apparently is that even though it is a chemical, WP is not really a "chemical weapon." It is an illumination device ... but, and the use of the term "shake and bake" (though also a football term) highlights the fact (no pun intended), the substance was also used as a weapon here. At best, the term "chemical weapon" is only technically inaccurate.
Thus, my concern with the lede of the article. One more he said/she said than actually informative ... and when it does make a judgment, it is a dubious one.
Update: I am listening to an interview (Friday) with long term Middle Eastern expert, Robert Fisk, and Fisk does not buy the "not a chemical weapon" line, underlining that the government cannot be trusted generally, and on this issue in particular ... so why is the U.S. press so wary of saying so?