Death is always in the news. From local car crashes to catastrophes in faraway places, deadly events are grist for the media mill. The coverage is ongoing — and almost always superficial.

It may be unfair to blame journalists for failing to meet standards that commonly elude artists. For centuries, on the subject of death, countless poets have strived to put the ineffable into words. It’s only easy when done badly.

Yet it’s hard to think of any other topic that is covered so frequently and abysmally in news outlets. The reporting on death is apt to be so flat that it might be mistaken for ball scores or a weather report.

Read the full column.

When Dick Cheney surfaced on Wednesday long enough for an interview with Fox News eminence Brit Hume — an event that CNN’s Jack Cafferty promptly likened to "Bonnie interviewing Clyde" — the vice presidential spin emerged from a timeworn bag of political tricks. Cheney took responsibility. Whatever that means.

The New York Times website swiftly made its top headline "Cheney Takes Full Responsibility for Shooting Hunter." Just before Fox News Channel aired interview segments at length, the summary from anchor Hume told viewers that Cheney had accepted "full responsibility for the incident." Hours later, the Washington Post’s front-page story led this way: "Vice President Cheney accepted full responsibility yesterday…"

Ironically — while news outlets kept using the phrase "full responsibility" — the transcript of the interview posted on FoxNews.com shows that Cheney never used any form of the word "responsibility."

Whatever their exact words, the politicians who can’t avoid acknowledging culpability are often the beneficiaries of excessive media plaudits for supposedly owning up to what they’ve done wrong. But those politicians rarely do more than just what the spin doctor ordered…

Read the full column.

The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.

Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.

Illusion 1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.

But what’s on the
horizon is not an invasion — it’s a major air assault, which the
American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites…

Read the full column.

Hours after Coretta Scott King died, President Bush led off the State of the Union address by praising her as “a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream.” For good measure, at the end of his speech, Bush reverently invoked the name of her martyred husband, Martin Luther King Jr.

The president is one of countless politicians who zealously oppose most of what King struggled for — at the same time that they laud his name with syrupy words. It wouldn’t be shrewd to openly acknowledge the basic disagreements. Instead, Bush and his allies offer up platitudes while pretending that King’s work ended with the fight against racial segregation.

Now that Dr. King’s widow is no longer alive, the smarmy process will be even easier: Just praise him as a beloved civil rights leader, as though the last few years of his life — filled with struggles for economic justice and peace — didn’t exist. Ignore King’s profound challenge to the kind of budget priorities and militarism holding sway today.

On Tuesday night, the president was eager to seem like a fervent admirer of Martin Luther King. But the next day, in the same House chamber where Bush spoke, his administration pushed through a vicious budget measure that will slash $39 billion in spending — mostly for student loans and Medicaid for the poor — over the next five years.

Nearly 38 years ago, Dr. King was killed in Memphis while leading the Poor People’s Campaign for an economic bill of rights. He’d been accusing Congress of “hostility to the poor.” The federal government, King pointed out, was appropriating “military funds with alacrity and generosity” — but “poverty funds with miserliness.”

Read the full column.

With great fanfare the other day, Oprah Winfrey asked James Frey a question that mainstream journalists refuse to ask George W. Bush: “Why would you lie?”

Many pundits and news outlets have chortled at the televised unmasking of Frey as a liar. The reverberations have spanned from schlock media to highbrow outlets. On Friday, the PBS “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” devoted an entire segment to what happened. The New York Times supplemented its page-one coverage with an editorial that concluded “Ms. Winfrey gave the audience, including us, what it was hoping for: a demand to hear the truth.”

A key reality of the National Security Agency spying story is: President Bush lied. But routinely missing from media coverage is a demand to hear the truth.

Read the full column.

Ever since the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative in July 2003, prominent Democrats have denounced that leak — often with some kind of rhetoric about the sanctity of classified information. But reverence for keeping such information secret is dangerous. And so is the claim that sometimes the government should put journalists in jail to ferret out leakers.

With the vice president’s former top aide Lewis Libby under indictment and Karl Rove still in the special counsel’s sights, the Bush administration is eager to go on the offensive about classified leaks. Loyal Republicans now claim higher moral ground as they decry the leak of classified information about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying that surfaced on the New York Times front page in mid-December.

"Thank goodness the Justice Department is investigating to find out who has been endangering our national security by leaking this information so that our enemies now have a greater sense of what our techniques are in going after terrorists," the GOP’s Sen. Mitch McConnell said on national television as this year began. He was on message with a bogus assertion.

Whoever spilled the beans about the NSA’s domestic spying did not endanger U.S. national security any more than Daniel Ellsberg did when he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press 35 years ago. In both cases, the leaks endangered official mendacity and served the interests of democratic accountability.

Read the full column.

Legalized killing requires official justifications. The execution of Clarence Ray Allen early Tuesday morning was no exception.

A prosecutor explained that "he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system." And California’s governor was stern when he denied a clemency request for the 76-year-old prisoner.

"The passage of time does not excuse Allen from the jury’s punishment," Arnold Schwarzenegger said. Allen had been convicted of enlisting a fellow prisoner to kill witnesses against him in 1980.

On Monday, according to unnamed "officials" cited in a San Francisco Chronicle account, the condemned man "ordered a final meal of buffalo steak, Kentucky Fried Chicken, sugar-free pecan pie, sugar-free black walnut ice cream and whole milk."

Allen "was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row," the Associated Press recounted. His last breath would be determined by the state’s timetable…

Read the full column.

No doubt many people are glad that Ted Koppel will become a regular voice on National Public Radio. He recently ended 25 years with ABC’s “Nightline” show amid profuse media accolades. But what kind of journalist goes out of his way to voice fervent admiration for Henry Kissinger?

Days ago, NPR announced that Koppel will do several commentaries per month on “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered.” The Associated Press reported that “he also will serve as an analyst during breaking news and special events.”

There’s some grim irony in the statement issued by NPR’s senior vice president for programming: “Ted and NPR are a natural fit, with curiosity about the world and commitment to getting to the heart of the story. The role of news analyst has been a tradition on NPR newsmagazines and there is no one better qualified to uphold and grow that tradition than Ted.”

But “the heart of the story” about U.S. foreign policy has often involved deceptions from Washington. And since Koppel became a prominent journalist, he has been a fervent booster of one of the most prodigious and murderous deceivers in U.S. history…

Read the full column.

The picture was perfect. It provided a moving portrait, an image that journalists called “iconic.” It was true to the moment. Yet the photograph was deceiving in a way that media images often are — showing us what’s more apparent than real.

One day, during the second week of November 2004, millions of Americans saw the photo. Blake Miller’s face was grimy, but his eyes were clearly visible. He seemed resolute, unflappable. Wisps of smoke appeared to be rising from the long cigarette that dangled from his lips.

At the time, Marines were fighting their way into Fallujah, and American news outlets went gaga for the picture. At age 20, Miller suddenly became a famous archetype.

The day after the photo was snapped, “CBS Evening News” anchor Dan Rather told viewers: “The picture. Did you see it? The best war photograph of recent years is in many newspapers today, front page in some. Taken by Luis Sinco of the Los Angeles Times, it is this close-up of a U.S. Marine on the front lines of Fallujah. He is tired, dirty and bloodied, dragging on that cigarette, eyes narrowed and alert. Not with the thousand-yard stare of a dazed infantryman so familiar to all who have seen combat firsthand, up close. No. This is a warrior with his eyes on the far horizon, scanning for danger.”

And the news anchor urged Americans to take the photo to heart…

On the third day of 2006, when the man in the iconic photo returned to the CBS airwaves on “The Early Show,” this time the mood was more somber…

Read the full column.

Another story on Blake Miller