If John Kerry wins the November election, we will mark September 16 as the turning point -- the day the New York Times published the story of a leaked National Intelligence Council report describing the worsening conditions in Iraq and identifying several scenarios for the coming year, none of them attractive.

Did the information contained in the report come as a surprise to anyone who had been following the events in Iraq with any attention? Clearly not. In fact, the report was already rather old, having been produced nearly two months prior to when it was finally delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 9. Also, it was based on information collected before the handover to the interim government at the end of June, since when the level of daily violence has continued to rise. The report's description of the situation on the ground and its forecasts are similar to other credible scenarios produced by prominent think tanks (CSIS, Chatham House) on both sides of the Atlantic in the prior few weeks.

The NIC report is, however, an animal unique among the sources of information and analysis about the situation in Iraq. It is official. And that has the potential to change the entire dynamics of media coverage.

Without an "official" (albeit in this case leaked) hook for reports and opinion pieces, the media have been caricatured as the "bad news bears." The coverage as a whole has been seriously at odds with the pictures painted by the Bush Administration, the Republican Convention, and the President's daily chant of "freedom on the march." Yet the growing reports of "facts on the ground" have produced at most a niggling "cognitive dissonance" at the corners of the public consciousness.

The media's coverage, although collectively painting a devastating picture of conditions in Iraq, has been severely diluted by its piecemeal character. Troublesome facts have been all too easily dismissed, by the combined WH and campaign machinery and by pundits and media on the right. The constant flow of bad news is explained away as the natural result of the negativity of media as an industry ("if it bleeds it leads") or further evidence of the extreme liberal bias of the mainstream media. As praktike described in his earlier story on the Chrenkoff Syndrome, attempts are made to counter these presumed distortions of the negative press with "good news" reports, especially after the CPA's daily "good news" media machine was shut down along with the CPA itself.

The press and television have found it very hard to cover the story within the formulaic rules of current media practices that purport to produce objective journalism. Those rules are increasingly hamstringing the communication of meaningful objective information, whether the subject be Iraq or health care or immigration. This is especially the case during the final months of a presidential campaign, when the "newest thing" are the most recent polls or shifts in campaign strategy and tactics. If the horse race didn't dominate the news before the party conventions, it certainly dominates coverage afterwards.

One of the primary problems the media have faced on the Iraq subject is that, within the rituals of the media, there are few mechanisms to challenge the White House directly. A question in the WH press gaggle about the bad news coming out of Iraq can be ignored by the WH press spokesman entirely or dismissed with a platitude (see below for Joe Klein's tale of a gaggle in this week's Time). Understandably, interviews or press conferences with the either candidate are few and far between. Neither campaign is eager to allow the press to intermediate the campaign's communication with the public and facilitate reporters' interposing their own scripts at odds with the campaign's preferred message. >/p>

In Bush's case, his discourse on Iraq is so broad and the timeframe of his claims are so non-specific and sweeping, that there are no references to specific events or facts that are easily shown to be explicitly at odds with other reportable events or facts. The Bush formula for talking about Iraq offers virtually no opportunities for "gotchas" that can themselves be converted into a "news event."

The second problem the media face (shared by the Kerry campaign) is the ability of the incumbent to set the agenda of much of the news cycle with production of news "events" that either appear to contradict or discredit the opponent or move attention on to a more favored topic. Announcements of new legislation, a new appointment, a major speech, a meeting with a foreign leader -- all must be covered by the press corps. As should be expected, the President's "events" are difficult to use as hooks for stories the Kerry camp wants to highlight and the WH wants to play down. The reverse is also true -- when the WH wants to bury something, it is typically released to the press on a Friday afternoon, preferably before a long holiday weekend, when no one in the press or the public is paying attention.

If the WH and the Bush campaign refuse to be a source of information that could be the "event" vehicle for communicating the disconnect between rhetoric and reality, the reporter or the newspaper/broadcaster is left with two basic options. The first is to use charges from the opposing campaign as the "news" event, but there's a limit on how frequently the media can use the opposition as the hook for stories in the conventions of today's press. Simply repeating the same charges, even if they are corroborated by additional "evidence" of impressionistic reporting from the field, apparently isn't sufficient to qualify as "news" in today's media competition for eyeballs. On the other hand, the most recent "evidence" of the veracity or falsehood of charges by Swift Boat Vets or National Guard officers appears to constitute "news" -- go figure.

If a newspaper or broadcaster decides a story is important even though it doesn't have a natural hook, the journalist assigned to the story has to create a hook. In the case of a self-generated story on the Bush credibility gap, this is tough assignment. It requires dealing with a huge range of events, opinions and results over time that must be selected by the journalist and woven into a meaningful storyline. Any time any story goes beyond a specific event and emphasizes a broader timeframe, the story becomes much more complex to communicate. So this type of story that can take the form of an occasional feature or series, but not as a regular news item.

By comparison with a story that's "breaking news" with an event or new piece of information as its hook, a feature is much less likely to find itself positioned on A1 or as a lead segment in a news broadcast unless it's a slow day. This disadvantage is another reason for the diluted impact of the field reporting from Iraq: each individual story is easily lost in the day-to-day news. In terms of overall impact, the "feature" type of story suffers another important disadvantage compared to "breaking news" -- the feature doesn't receive the validation and reinforcement that comes from simultaneous coverage of the same story across a number of media sources.

The most annoying media ritual of objectivity dealing with Iraq questions, both during the run-up to the war and as the situation in Iraq has worsened, is the "he said/she said" debate between subject-matter experts. It's understandable how the practice has developed over time until it reached its current ubiquity. Taking the example of Iraq, a journalist who characterizes the Administration's statements or policies as inconsistent with the reality in Iraq, necessarily implies that he has assessed a great deal of information -- about the situation in Iraq and the content of the Bush Administration's communications -- and has arrived at an informed and reasoned judgment about both. Journalists are, however, typically generalists, even when they specialize in a particular "beat." Other than the credibility of the news organization or the personal reputation of the journalist, the information-consuming public has no way to determine whether the journalist in fact knows anything about the story. Similarly, how does the reader or viewer determine whether the journalist has accurately distinguished information that is broadly agreed to be factual from what either theory or opinion. This makes such stories easy to be dismissed by Administration supporters as biased or inaccurate.

Unfortunately, the "cure" -- the reference to multiple subject-matter experts -- often seems worse than the disease. Rather than draw their own conclusions, journalists set up the background for the issues and then leave it to the voices of purported experts to express conclusions. This produces the "he said/she said" quotes from experts with different views, or the battle of talking heads in television interviews. In theory, these techniques allow the consumer of the information to better evaluate the journalist's overall storyline and sources. In fact, it seems rather to confuse the consumer, since no conclusions are drawn, or it becomes simply another form of reality television, in this case otherwise dignified people engaging in verbal food fights. And increasingly viewers and readers recognize that the so-called experts are really surrogates for partisan interests that are attempting to capture the main channels for producing and distributing information. So added to confusion or boredom is growing cynicism.

The best description of the "he said/she said" dilemma for viewers -- and for the media themselves -- is in an interview of Jon Stewart of Comedy Central by Ted Koppel of Nightline.

STEWART: It's that the partisan mobilization has become part of the media process. That they realize that, this real estate that you possess, television, is the most valuable real estate known to rulers. If Alexander the Great had TV, believe me, he would have had his spin guys dealing. Napoleon would have had people working. The key to leadership is to have that mouthpiece to the people. And that's what this is. You guys are... This is the battle for the airwaves. And that's what we watch, and I think that's what is so dispiriting to those at home who believe that... I think, there's a sense here that you're not participating in that battle, and there's a sense at home that you're ABSOLUTELY participating and complicit in that battle.

KOPPEL: Go a little further on that.

STEWART: I'm a news anchor. Remember this is bizarro world. And I say, the issue is health care and insurance, and why 40 million American kids don't have insurance -- 40 million Americans are uninsured. Is this health insurance program being debated in Congress good for the country? Let's debate it. I have with me Donna Brazile and Bay Buchanan. Let's go. Donna. "I think the Democrats really have it right here. I think that this is a pain for the insurance companies and the drug companies and this is wrong for America." Bay. "Oh no, what it is..." And then she throws out her figures from the Heritage Foundation, and she throws out her figures from the Brookings Institute, and the anchor -- who should be the arbiter of the truth -- says, "Thank you both very much, that was very interesting." No it wasn't! That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth. And that game has, I think, caused people to think, "I'm not watching this."

KOPPEL: Alright, so you have found an answer through humor...

STEWART: No. It's not an answer.

KOPPEL: Well, an answer that...

STEWART: I found an outlet. I found a catharsis. A sneeze, if you will.

KOPPEL: It's not just a catharsis for you, it's a catharsis for your viewers. Those who watch say, at least when I'm watching Jon, he can use humor to say BS, that's a crock.

STEWART: But that's always been the case. Satire has always been...

KOPPEL: Ok, but I can't do that.

STEWART: No, but you CAN say that's BS. You don't need humor to do that because you have what I wish I had which is credibility and gravitas. This is interesting stuff, and it's all part of the discussion and I think it's a good discussion to have, but I think it's important to take a more critical look. You know, don't you think?

KOPPEL: No.

STEWART: And certainly not from me.

KOPPEL: No, not from you. I've had enough of you.

STEWART: I know my role, I'm the dancing monkey.

KOPPEL: You're finished. (Smiles)

The emergence of the NIC report, which provides official evidence of a disconnect between presidential rhetoric and the reality of Iraq, immediately loosens the severe limitations that the media has been struggling under. They now have a never-ending hook back to the big picture, even if the day's campaign events don't directly deal with Iraq. The credibility gap will become a major focus of campaign reporting as part of the horse race (advertising strategies, polls, etc.) whether or not Bush or Kerry themselves make "news" through a new speech or comments.

Here are a few stories about Bush, Kerry and Iraq that have appeared in the first few days since the leak of the NIC report. They come at the story from a considerable number of different approaches. The very diversity of stories in which the credibility gap is raised strongly suggests that it is likely to become a consistent part of the media's script about Bush, in much the same way Kerry's supposed proclivity for flip-flopping has become part of the Kerry storyline.

• How the WH responds to the information in the leaked report. Joe Klein's piece in Time is priceless. During a mid-flight gaggle, Klein raised the troubling conclusions of the NIC with Scott McClellan:

  "The role of the CIA is to look at different scenarios," McClellan said. But all three CIA scenarios were awful, I pointed out. The best case was "tenuous stability," a continuation of the sapping insurgency we're seeing now.
  
  McClellan began to read from talking points. The "pessimists and naysayers" had been wrong, he said, about the Iraqi people's ability to establish a transitional government, a national council and a transitional law. The "Iraqi people" had little to do with establishing any of those, but McClellan plowed on. A reporter asked if McClellan was saying that the CIA was filled with "pessimists and naysayers," but McClellan wouldn't bite.

  And then Klein comes up with a zinger that he admits is "pretty wicked" and should become an overnight national meme:

  Scott McClellan is beginning to sound like Baghdad Bob, the infamous spokesman for Saddam who announced hallucinatory Iraqi victories as the American troops closed in on Baghdad.

• Whether the report will be declassified, as Senator Graham and others have demanded. This storyline allows comparison with, and reinforcement of the story about the production and manipulation of the discredited pre-war NIE from 2002.
• How Kerry's campaign tactics, speeches and advertising are taking advantage of the growing disenchantment with Bush failure to face up to problems. Kerry's speech Monday in New York was devoted in its entirety to the disconnect between the Administration's rhetoric and reality.
• How Bush and Kerry are likely to deal with the issue in the upcoming debates.
• The existence of the NIC report gave much more "bite" to stories of the scathing reactions of leading Republican Senators to testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the Administration's proposals to make significant immediate shifts in Iraqi assistance funding to address the eroding security environment and the risks to January's scheduled elections. This led to much more attention to their complaints in Sunday talk show appearances, with their statements on the talk shows being treated as important "newsworthy events."
• Then there are the stories that have a natural Iraq connection, such as Bush's schedule, both official and campaign planned events. The appearance of the NIC report gives quite a different context for the events Bush has scheduled at the UN and then with Allawi in Washington. How will the Administration play Iraq in these events, given the admission by the Administration's own intelligence folks that prospects are poor for a happy outcome in Iraq.

The NIC report allows the Kerry campaign to make "news" of its own each time the WH tries to make its own news on the Iraq subject. The "news" will not be that Kerry disagrees with the President, but rather how the President is dealing with the problem that his action or statement is potentially inconsistent with the report's conclusions or with new evidence of problems in Iraq.

A glance at editorial pages and lead political news coverage in major newspapers this weekend showed the immediate impact of the report on press coverage. The editorials began to call on Bush to "get real" about Iraq. See for example the lead editorial in Newsday on Sunday, Sept 19, which notes that Bush's "rosy, Pollyanna-style scenario appears to be supported by nothing much beyond sheer faith." The LA Times lead editorial on Saturday called on President Bush to "Drop the Pretense on Iraq". Steve Chapman, editorial board member of Chicago Tribune, wrote on Sunday that the situation had gone "From bad to worse in Iraq: Getting out with the least possible damage" ($archive).

Op-ed pages also began to focus on the Bush disconnect with reality. Maureen Dowd in the Sunday NYT offered an especially sharp condemnation, framing the credibility gap in terms of mothers' concerns about which candidate would better protect their children:

Last week, Mr. Kerry finally tried to change the subject from Mr. Bush's mockery of Mr. Kerry's tortuous stances on Iraq to the awful reality of what's happening in Iraq.

He got an assist from the president's own intelligence community, which issued a gloomy report that gave the lie to the administration's continued insistence that Iraq is a desert flower of democracy.

... Mr. Kerry is nibbling around the edges of the moral case against W(rong) and Dark Cheney. He charged that the president was living in "a fantasy world of spin" on Iraq.

But the Bushies are way beyond spin, which is a staple of politics. These guys are about turning the world upside down, and saying it's right side up. And that should really give security moms the jitters.

The Washington Post's ombudsman, Michael Getler, sent a clear warning on Sunday that the major newspapers were once again falling down on the job -- failing to report aggressively enough on the weaknesses of the case being made to the public by the President, similar to their failure during the lead-up to the war. Getler recognized that journalists have found it difficult to locate newsworthy, credible sources to make newsworthy stories and keep them alive. A Congress with few outspoken members on the issue, and a Democratic candidate whose positions on Iraq appear tortured, have certainly made the press' job more challenging. But he took his own paper to task for missing some important opportunities to start asking the right questions. And he made these broader observations the responsibilities of the mainstream media.

However one feels, it seems legitimate to ask: Is this war winnable? If so, how and at what cost? If no, should there be consequences or penalties for launching it? Is it making us safer? Or is it producing more terrorists and hatred of the United States and turning Iraq into a breeding ground for both? Has it diminished our ability to fight the force that did attack us, al Qaeda, and find its leader, Osama bin Laden? How do we make informed judgments about these questions, and how much can the press help us?

[...]

In recent months, some news organizations, such as the New York Times and The Post, have done some soul-searching about their prewar coverage. Where was the press when we needed it, was the question properly asked by press critics and critical readers. Yet that question may well be asked again, and with far greater force and consequence, in the months and years to come if those gut questions about the war are not substantively addressed in this election campaign.

The election may still remain captured by medals or fonts or military records of 35 years ago. But the odds have improved dramatically that the media will be able to force some of the final six weeks to focus on what David Broder has called "Questions We'll Wish We Asked."

The Allawi grand tour of US political landmarks -- Capitol Hill, Rose Garden, talk shows -- has combined with the Bush UN appearance to highlight the credibility gap further. Dan Froomkin of the WaPost's daily White House Briefing today leads with this thought: the election boils down to what voters think about the credibility gap.

For the American voter, it's looking increasingly like the November election comes down to this: Do you take what President Bush says on face value, or do you question it?

As it happens, it's the White House press corps' job to do the latter.

Yesterday in the Rose Garden, flanked by Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Bush insisted that things are headed in the right direction in Iraq and that sending mixed messages about the future American role in Iraq only makes the job harder.

But today's press coverage poses two serious questions: Isn't what Bush says about Iraq flatly at odds with reality? And isn't it getting awfully close to accusing the Democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy?