Matt Lauer Whines About "Laziness of the Media"

Matt Lauer, long-time host of NBC's "The Today Show", has recently blasted how the media handled, or mishandled, the whole Ann Curry's firing thing.

Here is what he had to say about it:

“The way the media treated what happened with Ann Curry was a disappointing learning experience. I was disappointed by the laziness of the media, the willingness to read a rumor, repeat that rumor, and treat it as a fact.”

Here's the thing: Matt Lauer is the media. He has been one of the most recognizable faces in the media for many, many years now. And although what is is arguing here is actually rather true, he himself is guilty of that same same laziness.

And for higher stakes, to boot. Much higher.

I may sound like a broken record for bringing this up again, but it was such a huge moment in recent history, and so indicative of the failings of the news media in the United States, of which Mr. Lauer was a big part. He was still one of the main faces for news on NBC, and could be seen almost every weekday morning, providing the news, or at least what was supposed to pass for the news.

If you have not guessed, I am talking about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, and all of the disinformation and downright falsehoods that were being thrown around.  Iraq had an enormous arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's), and supposedly, American intelligence knew where they were. Donald Rumsfeld had that infamous quote before television cameras, claiming  "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north". Iraq, a nation that had been soundly defeated during the first gulf war, suddenly posed an "immediate threat" to world peace, and had a "45 minute response time". And in a speech aired not only nationally, but which became an international incident, George W. Bush uttered these infamous words that have come to be known as the "sixteen words":

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Yes, Saddam Hussein, it was alleged, had tried to get yellow cake from Africa, with the aim of obtaining nuclear weapons. All of this, of course, would have made Saddam Hussein a dire threat indeed, and would also have placed Iraq as a huge power, if not a virtual superpower. Yet, the administration assured the nation that this immediate threat to world peace, these man that had at times been compared to Hitler, would be defeated quickly. Once again, predictions of a fast and decisive war to topple the Saddam regime were prevalent, and perhaps the best and most infamous example of this, to use the words of Donald Rumsfeld once again, were these: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Of course, we all know what happened next. The United States engaged in the attack, against the wishes of the rest of the world. Skepticism about American intents were so huge, that many long-standing allies were questioning the United States. If there is any country in the world where people know Americans better than anyone else, perhaps even better than Americans themselves simply because of their proximity and close ties, it would be Canada. Yet, a poll by Canadians showed that fully one-third of those polled viewed the United States as a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.

"One-third of Canadians Say US Threatens World Peace", January 19, 2003

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/19/eng20030119_110410.shtml

Nor were Canadians alone in their skepticism of American intentions. If there was one country that Americans felt more of a kinship with than any other at that time, it would have to be Britain, right? Yet, in a similar poll to the Canadian one, a very large percentage of British people polled viewed George W. Bush as a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.

"1 in 3 say Bush is biggest threat" by Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian, 14 November, 2002

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/14/usa.iraq

"Brit Public Sees Bush As  Bigger Threat Than Saddam

http://rense.com/general35/biag.htm


Afterwards, of course, the justification was that Saddam was a bad guy, which was certainly true, but not the stated reason for invading a sovereign nation. Saddam Hussein indeed had used chemical weapons on his own people, weapons that he had only obtained from the United States, which kept supporting him even after these attacks were confirmed. He was a monster.

But Saddam was nothing compared to the military might of the United States, and the rest of the world knew it. In truth, I suspect that a majority, even a vast majority, of Americans knew this, too. And frankly, it would have been up to the media to do a better job - and I mean a much better job - than they did in challenging these false assertions. That is their duty, simply stated. To present the news, the facts. Not to serve the administration, to simply state their assertions without question. You can say, as many have since said, that they were going on the best information that they had at the time. But that is not exactly true, either. After all, the rest of the world stood vehemently opposed to the American invasion, and believed the claims that Saddam had such a huge arsenal to be greatly exaggerated at best, and downright self-serving falsehoods at worst. There were reports from the United Nations, as well as other countries, suggesting that there was no evidence of WMD's. But the American media seemed to make this a sidenote, constantly going back to the relentless, hawkish barrage from the Bush regime in favor of war.

The war came, and the falsehoods were, once again, relentless. There was the Jessica Lynch story - which proved a fabrication. There was the "Mission Accomplished" speech, which people, particularly the media at the time, did not question. But what there was not were the WMD's. Bush joked about it. Maybe we should ask the family members of the 100,000 Iraqis dead how funny that was.

The media failed to do it's job, from beginning to end of that whole affair. And Matt Lauer was a big part of that, being one of the most recognizable, and thus by extension, presumably trusted faces and voices of the news at the time. But he was playing softball, much like so many of the American media, in ma game that required elite baseball skills. He was complicit in the failure of the media, and frankly, of the American nation, during that unjustifiable invasion. I remember watching the Today Show at  some point, when Tony Blair was facing a very difficult challenge to his remaining in office as Prime Minister. What was the insightful, piercing observation that Lauer offered? He was praising Tony Blair for his bravery in supporting the American war effort, in the face of the lack of popularity of the war in Britain. I remember looking at his face, and you could just tell, this was not rehearsed. This was how he really felt. No criticism for the huge, glaring mistakes, and those with such huge stakes at hand. After all, war is no video game. This was real, and real people were killed. The media needed to do a better job. Matt Lauer, as a prominent figure in the media, needed to do a better job.

How laughable that he now criticizes the same media, as if he was not a part of the problem. Fact of the matter is, Matt Lauer failed us when it mattered the most. TO my knowledge, he never apologized for his own role, and seems to feel no real remorse.

Lauer may or may not have a point with how the media covered the whole Ann Curry situation. But then again, before he criticizes "the media", he should understand that he himself is "the media" and take ownership for his own failings as a big part of the media that he now seems to so easily distance himself from when it's convenient. Lauer's failure was not unique at the time, and I am not trying to lay blame on him solely. But he certainly did not stand out among members of the media back then, and for that alone, his assertions of some kind of media failure presently sound absurd, at least to my ears. Again, I ask the question of whether the victims of those killed in an unjustifiable war, which Matt Lauer, among others, was guilty of by media association, would view his sudden insights on the failings of the "lazy" media today as more important than the even more extreme "laziness of the media" that Lauer himself was responsible for, not that long ago. Because he, and most of the American media along with him, accepted thr rumor, repeat that, rumor, as the gospel truth. at a time when the stakes could not have been higher.

The article (the link can be found below) concludes with another quote from Lauer:

“Does anyone want to see a person who’s making the money that the newspapers say I’m making complaining, ‘Woe is me, my life is terrible, and people are being unfair’? No one would’ve had any patience for that. I wouldn’t have any patience for that. So you just shut up and go about doing your job.”

You know what, Matt? Maybe you are on to something there. We are facing the possibility of another military engagement in the versatile Middle East, this time in Syria. The war in Afghanistan rages on. North Korea seems to be unstable. And the world in general is just a mess, it seems. Personally, I don't want to hear your opinion. I didn't want to hear it about Iraq, or about Tony Blair, and I certainly don't want to hear it about Ann Curry, or how you feel now, when "the media' paints you, specifically, in a negative light, that it has somehow failed. Truth be told, when I turn on the news (and allegedly, "The Today Show" falls under the category of the news), I don't think your place is to share or show your opinion at all. So, take your own advice: Shut up and do your job. You certainly were not doing it a decade or so ago, when it mattered most.

"Matt Lauer Decries “Laziness Of The Media” In Wake Of Ann Curry’s ‘Today’ Exit" posted by Deadline.com,  September 10, 2013 9:16 PM  

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/matt-lauer-decries-laziness-media-wake-ann-curry-041619859.html