From the Archives: Predicting Tom Friedman

(The MediaBloodhound op-ed column was originally posted on June 12, 2006. Before you sit down with your Sunday morning coffee and tune in to Meet the Press (because, apparently, you are also a masochist), you might want to revisit this piece on New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. The mustachioed master of the overwrought metaphor will be joining Tim Russert, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Friedman will make yet another prediction on the situation in Iraq. In a perfect world, Russert would then cut to footage of every false prediction Friedman has made since the beginning of this war. Unfortunately, one hour may not be long enough.)

Tom Friedman likes making predictions. Especially about the war in Iraq.

Though, unlike most people, if Friedman's predictions don't come true - or, more precisely, are wildly off the mark - he refuses to admit he made a mistake. Instead, he simply changes the time frame in which the original prediction was to occur. And changes it again. And again. And again. Desperately hoping his prophecy will eventually come to pass. We're supposed to believe him because he's Tom Friedman, and he says we're supposed to believe him. (Kind of reminds me of The Decider in the White House.) And while that seems good enough for his colleagues in the mainstream media and those of his readers who defer to his alleged expertise "on the ground," it leaves the rest us wondering why his viewpoint on Iraq is still deemed credible by anyone.

In May, we covered the FAIR report documenting Friedman's pattern of endlessly rejiggering his timetable on when a clear picture of Iraq's success or failure will surface. His multiple "six-month window" projections have now extended to over three and a half years. And counting.

Yesterday, he was back with another prediction. This one predicated on why his original predictions were never actually proven wrong. Here's Friedman to explain, with help from CNN's Howard Kurtz:

KURTZ: Now, I want to understand how a columnist's mind works when you take positions, because you were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions "the next six months are crucial in Iraq," the next six months. And now you've written a column saying that Americans are simply not going to tolerate this kind of anarchy for another two years and deadlines have to be set. Were you conscious that you were now shifting your position on this?

FRIEDMAN: Not really. You know, the problem with analyzing the story, Howie, is that it doesn't -- everyone, first of all, this is the most polarized story I've certainly written about, so everyone wants, basically, to be proven right, OK?

So the left -- people who hated the war, they want you to declare the war is over, finish, we give up. The right, just the opposite. But I've been trying to just simply track the situation on the ground. And the fact is that the outcome there is unclear, and I reflected that in my column. And I will continue to reflect.

KURTZ: Unclear, but you're running out of patience?

FRIEDMAN: Well, it's not that I'm running out of patience. The story's evolving. And what strikes me as I see it evolve, when it drags on, six months after an election we still don't have a government. Then, as a columnist who's offering opinions on what I think the right policy is, it seems to me we have to be telling Iraqis we are not going to be here forever, providing a kind of floor under the chaos, while you dicker over the most minute things when American lives are at stake. So I think it's a constantly evolving thing.

The classic mainstream media square dance. Friedman grabs Kurtz's original question and tosses it aside. Kurtz obliges with a curtsy and dosey-do. Then Friedman swings logic round and round, and justifies his slippery timelines by declaring the situation in Iraq "a constantly evolving thing." Now...bow to your host...bow to your guest. And...pat yourselves on your backs. 

"A constantly evolving thing." What a convenient assessment of Iraq. The kind presidents and military brass use to dodge legitimate timetables and extend prosecution of wars far beyond reason. I somehow doubt Friedman would feel as comfortable with his wait-and-see attitude if he had a son or daughter in Iraq. If he had to greet each morning with the dreadful uncertainty of not knowing whether his child had made it through another night.

Just as Bush's credibility suffered by telling us that what we were seeing and hearing and reading about Iraq was all wrong, so too should Tom Friedman's. His ongoing reverential treatment by the mainstream media will only further erode public confidence in traditional news outlets. Sadly, Friedman will remain a fixture at The New York Times because he perpetuates the kind of nuanced cheerleading and cover for the Bush administration in which The Times often participates. Meanwhile, he represents everything that infuriates those who saw this illegal war for what it was prior to the invasion. Like this administration, instead of basing his analysis on reality, facts and common sense, he continues to rely on fitting the "situation on the ground" to his own ideology. In trying to save face now for his past assessments on Iraq, largely inspired by the geo-political perspective on which he's staked his reputation, Friedman has irrevocably tarnished his name in the process.

Of course, many will forget all about this. Eventually, the Bush administration will go darkly, brutally, into the night. We will bid Iraq adieu, wondering how mad our leaders must have been to have entered in the first place. Fresh calamities and concerns will arise, helping to wash away the memory of those in the media who served as mouthpieces or apologists for this White House. Time, most likely, will be more forgiving to Tom than not.

But here's a prediction. And a promise.

Tom Friedman's inability, or refusal, to accurately assess the situation in Iraq and the true intentions of this White House will be remembered by the current generation of progressive media, and by the ever-growing generation of readers who now rely on it to find the truth.