Think of it as a feedback loop. The majority party initiates a war that initially has wide public support; the media covers the war; the media’s coverage has an influence on public opinion; if a sufficiently large change in public opinion takes place, an election will result in the opposition party becoming the majority party; and the new majority party alters the war policies that had been followed by the former majority party. No matter how “objective” the media may be, it is an integral part of the electoral process.

When it began, the Iraq war, like most (all?) American wars, met the approval of a substantial majority of Americans. James Q. Wilson, in the current issue of City Journal, cites the results of an evaluation of network news broadcasts by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The results were illuminating, to say the least:

  • During the “active war” against Saddam (which I take to mean until Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech), 51% of the media’s reports about the war were negative. Even before the insurgency began, the media’s reporting was evenly split.

  • Six months later, 77% were negative. Note that this was well before the Abu Ghraib scandal.

  • At the time of the 2004 presidential election, 89% were negative. Even so, Bush won the election, indicating that the media’s selection of stories did not (yet) dominate voting decisions.

  • By the spring of 2006, 94% of the stories were negative. There’s no reason to believe that the media’s take on the war became less negative as the November elections neared. Nor is there yet any empirical evidence (that I’m aware of, at any rate) that the media’s near-unanimity was what put the Democrats over the top. However, I think its reasonable to assume that negative (or positive) reporting has a cumulative effect on voters’ perceptions.

After summarizing the CMPA’s study, Wilson avers that “[p]eople who oppose the entire War on Terror run much of the national press, and they go to great lengths to make waging it difficult.” That they have. He singles out the New York Times—as have I, on many occasions.

Then, in the most interesting part of his article, Wilson supposes that the current media posture about American military and security activities had existed during World War II and provides examples of how some key events might have been reported:

  • December 1941: Though the press supports America’s going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, several editorials want to know why we didn’t prevent the attack by selling Japan more oil. Others criticize us for going to war with two nations that had never attacked us, Germany and Italy.

  • October 1942: The New York Times runs an exclusive story about the British effort to decipher German messages at a hidden site at Bletchley Park in England. One op-ed writer criticizes this move, quoting Henry Stimson’s statement that gentlemen do not read one another’s mail. Because the Bletchley Park code-cracking helped us find German submarines before they attacked, successful U-boat attacks increased once the Germans, knowing of the program, changed their code.

  • January 1943: After President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill call for the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, several newspapers criticize them for having closed the door to a negotiated settlement. The press quotes several senators complaining that the unconditional surrender policy would harm the peace process.

  • May 1943: A big-city newspaper reveals the existence of the Manhattan Project and its effort to build atomic weapons. In these stories, several distinguished scientists lament the creation of such a terrible weapon. After General Leslie Groves testifies before a congressional committee, the press lambastes him for wasting money, ignoring scientific opinion, and imperiling the environment by building plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge.

  • December 1944: The German counterattack against the Allies in the Ardennes yields heavy American losses in the Battle of the Bulge. The press gives splashy coverage to the Democratic National Committee chairman’s assertion that the war cannot be won. A member of the House, a former marine, urges that our troops be sent to Okinawa.

  • August 1945: After President Truman authorizes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, many newspapers urge his impeachment.

During World War II, “objectivity”—not taking sides—took second place to the national interest—winning the war. And I have no doubt that the executive editor of the New York Times—whoever he was—would have disagreed with Bill Keller’s recent statement that “I don’t think a secret program has to be illegal to be newsworthy.”