What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

The Iraq War in Hindsight: How Journalism Is Versus How It Should Be

October 28, 2011, 1:44 PM

--Guest post by Sarah Merritt, American University doctoral student.

As we begin to look back at the Iraq war in hindsight, it is clear that more scholarship needs to focus on how both small and large-scale journalistic systems operate in times where going to war should be deemed controversial and the subject of public skepticism.

As the University of Pennsylvania's Barbie Zelizer explains, much of the relevant scholarship in political science involves inquiring how journalism is versus how it ought to be, including the interaction between the journalist and the source as well as the functioning of journalism’s intersection with the political world. In the case of the Iraq war, both of these factors played a role.

Bill Moyer’s 2007 documentary "Selling the War" about the press’s involvement with the government in pushing for the war in Iraq identified several conditions and factors that constrained the independence and skepticism of journalists and their news organizations. As Moyers opens the film:

The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn’t have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on. Since then thousands of people have died, and many are dying to this day.

According to the documentary, patriotic fervor made journalists less willing to ask difficult questions or even question the facts set forth by the Bush administration.  Journalists’ own emotions, especially those who covered Ground Zero, potentially interfered with challenging the President’s claims and decisions. News organizations – notably CNN -- even felt threatened to post pictures of civilian war casualties with a CNN memo warning that advertisers and audiences might be lost if coverage was too critical of the Administration. 

With regard to small-scale journalistic practices, sourcing practices as described by Zelizer and identified in the Moyers film as specific to the coverage of claims of weapons of mass destruction enabled the government to make the case to go to war.  Scholar Michael Schudson warns about the social organization of newswork that “the reality-constructing practices of the powerful will fail (in the long run) if they ride roughshod over the world “out there.”

As social scientists, we view political news making as reality-constructing, too often following the lead of government officials and others in power.  Sourcing practices define journalism on a day-to-day basis, where the interaction of reporters and government officials is central. As in the case with the decision to go to war in Iraq, analysts agree, according to Schudson, that officials have the ‘upper hand.’

As Sigal (1986) asserted, “News is not what happens, but what someone says has happened or will happen” (p.25).  All too true in the case of weapons of mass destruction.

If you haven't watch the Billy Moyers' documentary Selling the War, the full film is available online.  Below is a trailer.


--Guest post by Sarah Merritt, a doctoral student at American University’s School of Communication.  Read other posts by AU doctoral students and find out more about thedoctoral program in Communication at American University.


Moyer, B. (2007). Buying the war: How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? Bill Moyer’s Journal. Retrieved online from http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html.

Schudson, M. (2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 249-269.

Sigal, L. (1986). Sources make the news. In R. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the News (pp.9-37). New York: Pantheon.

Zelizer, B. (2004). Chapter 6: Sociology and Journalism. Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy (pp.145-173). Sage Publications, Inc. 



The Iraq War in Hindsight: ...

Newsletter: Share: