Koppel Defends Iraq Coverage

Editor's Note: One of the opportunities these conventions provide is the chance to ask questions of people we normally don't have access to. And it's not just the politicians. There are some 15,000 journalists crammed into the FleetCenter. America"s most recognizable newspeople roam the halls. Some, like Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, have their own security details. Yesterday, we caught up with Ted Koppel, the host of ABC's NightLine. And we asked him about the Network news coverage of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the ABC and the other networks should apologize for providing an uncritical forum for the administration to lay out their unsubstantiated claims of weapons of mass destruction?

I am glad you phrased your question so nicely. No, I don't think an apology is due if what you are saying is could we all have been more critical? I think the answer is yes. I must tell you, I am going to be responsive in behalf of Nightline over which I do have some control. We did do a 90-minute town hall meeting, the title of which was Why Now? and the essence of which was: Where is the evidence that there's an immediate danger to the United States? Did we do enough programs like that? I concede we did not. But that's a function of perhaps incompetence on my part, but certainly not ill will and I will try and do better the next time, but I don't think I need to apologize for it.

A study of the two weeks around Colin Powell giving his address at the U.N. for war looked at the four major nightly news casts ABC, CBS, and NBC and the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Of the 393 interviews done around war, only three were with anti-war representatives. Now this was at a time when about half of the population was opposed to the invasion wanting more inspections and diplomacy. So that did not reflect mainstream America at all.

No, but I, you know, where is it written that it is a journalist's responsibility to go check the polls every day and see what mainstream America wants them to do?

No. But three of almost 400 interviews were anti-war representatives? That is so skewed to the pro-war voice.

Right. I agree with you. But I must ask you in return, what was, you know, what would you have looked to for evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction? There was evidence in 1998 that those weapons of mass destruction, not only existed, but were present in, just let me finish the plot – not only existed, but were present in Iraq. It did not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to lose control over his country if all he had to do was say all right, U.N., come on in, check it out, I will show you, give you whatever evidence you want to have, let you interview whomever you want to interview. Logically at that time, it seemed as though weapons of mass destruction – did I believe at the time that there were weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely, I did.

Well let me look at September 2002. Bush and Blair have their news conference at Camp David. They say an I.A.E. report has just come out that alleges that Saddam Hussein will get nuclear weapons within six months.

Yeah.

This was six month away before the invasion.

Sure.

Almost no mainstream reporter in this country reported, there was no such report.

I can take you back to 1990 for example when the evidence from the CIA was that there was no indication that the Iraqis had any kind of a nuclear program. After the war, they found all kinds of evidence.

But they were citing an IAE report that didn't exist. Then what about the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein? He said, he was quoted repeatedly by the press when they like what had he said. When he was anti-establishment, when he said we have no – we destroyed the weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, then the press did not pick up on this. I mean – if these kinds of issues were the voices they would cite for other issues.