Exclusive: The movie, Kill the Messenger, portrays the mainstream U.S. news media as craven for destroying Gary Webb rather than expanding on his investigation of the Contra-cocaine scandal. So, now one of those journalists is renewing the character assassination of Webb, notes Robert Parry.
Jeff Leen, the Washington Posts assistant managing editor for investigations, begins his renewed attack on the late Gary Webbs Contra-cocaine reporting with a falsehood.
Leen insists that there is a journalism dictum that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. But Leen must know that it is not true. Many extraordinary claims, such as assertions in 2002-03 that Iraq was hiding arsenals of WMDs, were published as flat-fact without extraordinary proof or any real evidence at all, including by Leens colleagues at the Washington Post.
Journalist Gary Webb Journalist Gary Webb A different rule actually governs American journalism that journalists need extraordinary proof if a story puts the U.S. government or an ally in a negative light but pretty much anything goes when criticizing an enemy.
If, for instance, the Post wanted to accuse the Syrian government of killing civilians with Sarin gas or blame Russian-backed rebels for the shoot-down of a civilian airliner over Ukraine, any scraps of proof no matter how dubious would be good enough (as was the actual case in 2013 and 2014, respectively).
However, if new evidence undercut those suspicions and shifted the blame to people on the U.S. side say, the Syrian rebels and the Ukrainian government then the standards of proof suddenly skyrocket beyond reach. So what you get is not responsible journalism as Leen tries to suggest but hypocrisy and propaganda. One set of rules for the goose and another set for the gander.
The Contra-Cocaine Case
Or to go back to the Contra-cocaine scandal that Brian Barger and I first exposed for the Associated Press in 1985: If we were writing that the leftist Nicaraguan Sandinista government the then U.S. enemy was shipping cocaine to the United States, any flimsy claim would have sufficed. But the standard of proof ratcheted up when the subject of our story was cocaine smuggling by President Ronald Reagans beloved Contras.
In other words, the real dictum is that there are two standards, double standards, something that a careerist like Leen knows in his gut but doesnt want you to know. All the better to suggest that Gary Webb was guilty of violating some noble principle of journalism.
But Leen is wrong in another way because there was extraordinary proof establishing that the Contras were implicated in drug trafficking and that the Reagan administration was looking the other way.
When Barger and I wrote the first story about Contra-cocaine trafficking almost three decades ago, we already had extraordinary proof, including documents from Costa Rica, statements by Contras and Contra backers, and admissions from officials in the Drug Enforcement Administration and Ronald Reagans National Security Council staff.
However, Leen seems to dismiss our work as nothing but getting tips about Contra-cocaine trafficking as if Barger and I were like the hacks at the Washington Post and the New York Times who wait around for authorized handouts from the U.S. government.
Following the Money
Barger and I actually were looking for something different when we encountered the evidence on Contra-cocaine trafficking. We were trying to figure out how the Contras were sustaining themselves in the field after Congress cut off the CIAs financing for their war.
We were, in the old-fashioned journalistic parlance, following the money. The problem was the money led, in part, to the reality that all the major Contra organizations were collaborating with drug traffickers.
Besides our work in the mid-1980s, Sen. John Kerrys follow-on Contra-cocaine investigation added substantially more evidence. Yet Leen and his cohorts apparently felt no need to pursue the case any further or even give respectful attention to Kerrys official findings.
Indeed, when Kerrys report was issued in April 1989, the Washington Post ran a dismissive story by Michael Isikoff buried deep inside the paper. Newsweek dubbed Kerry a randy conspiracy buff. In Leens new article attacking Gary Webb published on the front-page of the Washington Posts Sunday Outlook section Leen just says:
After an exhaustive three-year investigation, the committees report concluded that CIA officials were aware of the smuggling activities of some of their charges who supported the contras, but it stopped short of implicating the agency directly in drug dealing. That seemed to be the final word on the matter.
But why was it the final word? Why didnt Leen and others who had missed the scandal as it was unfolding earlier in the decade at least try to build on Kerrys findings. After all, these were now official U.S. government records. Wasnt that extraordinary enough?
In this context, Leen paints himself as the true investigative journalist who knew the inside story of the Contra-cocaine tale from the beginning. He wrote: As an investigative reporter covering the drug trade for the Miami Herald,
I wrote about the explosion of cocaine in America in the 1980s and 1990s, and the role of Colombias Medellin Cartel in fueling it.
Beginning in 1985, journalists started pursuing tips about the CIAs role in the drug trade. Was the agency allowing cocaine to flow into the United States as a means to fund its secret war supporting the contra rebels in Nicaragua? Many journalists, including me, chased that story from different angles, but the extraordinary proof was always lacking.
Again, what Leen says is not true. Leen makes no reference to the groundbreaking AP story in 1985 or other disclosures in the ensuing years. He just insists that the extraordinary proof was lacking which it may have been for him given his lackluster abilities. He then calls the final report of Kerrys investigation the final word.
But Leen doesnt explain why he and his fellow mainstream journalists were so incurious about this major scandal that they would remain passive even in the wake of a Senate investigation. Its also not true that Kerrys report was the final word prior to Webb reviving the scandal in 1996.
Click for Full Text!