Mirror, Mirror

The editor of the Mirror has been sacked due to unknowingly publishing fake pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. The question now arises why newspaper editors should be subject to more stringent rules of "truthfulness" than politicians? Blair went to war on the back of "dodgy dossiers." No one, from the PM downwards, has resigned as a result of the failure to find WMDs. Why? What of the MPs who told their constituents Iraq had long-range missiles and WMD? None of them have admitted that these facts were wrong.

Moreover, Blair's lies were faithfully reported by the pro-war media. Will we now see the resignation of the editors whose headines read "45 minutes from doom"? It is doubtful. What of those newspapers which during the war reported (in some detail) events which, the next day, were admitted not to have happened? Why have the editors of those papers which reported, say, the uprising in Basra not been sacked?

Clearly some mistakes are worse than others. But, it will be argued, Morgan's actions were irresponsible and have "put our lads in Iraq at serious risk." Strange logic as it was Blair's lies which have placed "our lads" in danger. Moreover, "our lads" have, according to Amnesty International and the Red Cross, been abusing prisoners.

Sadly this has been obscured by the furore over the authenticity of the Mirror's pictures. One thing is sure, if the media had investigated the government's assertions about Iraqi WMD it is doubtful we would be in Iraq now.


More writings from Anarcho