Lt. Col. Tim Ryan has written a lengthy piece criticizing the media coverage in Iraq that has attracted a lot of attention. A rejoinder.
Dear Lt. Col. Ryan,
Thank you for your service in Iraq. I wish you the best, and hope you are home soon. However. A few bones to pick with your recent article.
I am sorry you think the media is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” The reporters I know are working hard, risking their lives, to bring the truth to the American public. I certainly wish the news out of Iraq could be more positive. And yes, some of your complaints are very familiar, about the media “highlighting the negative.” Ten thousand planes can land safely; it’s only when the jet crashes do the reporters show up. That’s just how journalism works. To some extent, that can give a distorted view of neighborhoods and everyday life, and I agree that balancing the two is a challenge for journalists.
You write that “In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500.” Forgive me for being skeptical. But I’m curious how much confidence you have in that figure. My understanding is that enemy kill totals are little more than best guesses by commanders on the ground. Yet when the Times’ Dexter Filkins toured Fallujah, he found
little evidence of dead insurgents in the streets and warrens where some of the most intense combat took place … The absence of insurgent bodies in Falluja has remained an enduring mystery. Roaming American patrols found few on Sunday in their sweeps of the devastated landscape where the rebels chose to make their last stand, the southern Falluja neighborhood called Shuhada by the Iraqis and Queens by the American troops.
In any case, you write that, “As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. “
Well, yeah. Doesn’t that have something to do with how the insurgents raided police stations in Mosul, killing Iraqi police officers and burning the governor’s house to the ground? You continue,
More recently, a major news agency’s website lead read: “Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad” and “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not.
Despite searches on Google News and Nexis, I’ve been unable to find any story headlines, “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” I find it hard to believe that any reporter would knowingly leave this detail out and would like to see a citation.
Why aren’t papers leading with items like, “Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents”? Hmm. Well, I’ve a give you a clue: In the three days since your article was published in the World Tribune Jan. 18, insurgents have detonated five truck bombs across Baghdad, released an audio tape warning of holy war and beheaded an Iraqi soldier in broad daylight. Even as I write this, CNN just reported an ambulance plowed into a wedding party and exploded.
So unfortunately, I don’t think an article headlined, “Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents” would be particularly accurate. Do you?
You continue,
What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah?
First off, the woman’s name is Margaret Hassan. Second, the mutilated body found on the streets of Fallujah was not Hassan’s, as was reported Dec. 1. Her remains still have not been recovered. If you’re going to mention the poor woman, at least get her name right.
Alas, your shoddy attempt at journalism continues:
What the media didn’t show or write about [in Najaf] were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked.
I’ll let Alex Berenson, the New York Times reporter who was embedded with the Marines and covered the battle of Najaf from start to finish, handle this one:
The massacre of hundreds of women and children inside a sacred Muslim shrine would have been front-page news worldwide for days. We didn’t report it because it never happened. There were almost no women and children, living or dead, anywhere near the shrine by the time the battle ended. We did get — and write about — reports that Sadr’s guys had tortured and killed a handful of Iraqi police officers and other people unfortunate enough to run afoul of the Mahdi Army.
Berenson, incidentally, was taken captive and almost killed by the Mahdi Army. Your words are an insult to him and all the other reporters who risked their lives covering the battle.
Continuing…
Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a “special report” in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical “feints” designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.
Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn’t start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.
Here’s what Lt. Col. Lyle Gilbert of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit told CNN Oct. 14: “The troops crossed the line of departure. It’s been a pretty uncomfortable time. We have two battalions out there in maneuver right now dealing with the anti-Iraqi forces and achieving the mission of restoring security and stability to this area. It’s going to be a long night.”
Of course, the attack didn’t come until weeks later. The LA Times broke this story Dec. 1. Here’s CNN’s story, which never uses the word “lie.” It does quote a Pentagon spokesman as saying, “Gilbert’s remarks were ‘technically true but misleading.’ It was an attempt to get CNN ‘to report something not true,’ the official said.”
I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether Gilbert’s words constitute “misinformation” … perhaps they can parse the meaning of “is” at the same time.
You are right about one thing, though: as long as American soldiers are getting killed nearly every day, we’re not going to be giving much coverage to the opening of multimillion dollar sewage projects.
American lives are worth more than Iraqi shit.
P.S. I’m a 32-year-old MSM reporter. These opinions are just my own. I’ve never been to Iraq, but have written about it from the comfort of my desk. Here’s some of what I wrote about Fallujah; also here.
P.P.S. I use the term “insurgents” when the enemy attacks U.S. soldiers. I have no problem calling them “terrorists” when they attack civilians. Hell, when I reported about Saudi authorities finding Paul Johnson’s severed head in a freezer we called ’em “sickos” in a headline. And that WAS sick. Ugh. Anyway, if anyone has a more appropriate term than “insurgents,” feel free to suggest it.
P.P.S. Inspired by the some of the comments here, I had a close look at Chrenkoff’s latest “good news from Iraq” update to see the news the media’s been missing. Hmm. I expected to see a stuff from soldier and Iraqi blogs, but looking at the sources … there are articles from the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the LA Times (via the Contra-Conta Times), USA Today, the London Times, the LA Times again (via the Register-Guard), Business Week, the BBC, the Washington Post, the News-Record (link doesn’t work), the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the New York Times, the AP, the Asbury-Park Press, the Grand-Rapids Press, and the AP via CNN.
So tell me — what’s that complaint again?
P.P.P.S. – Hell, there’s even been articles about Iraqi sewage projects. It’s kind of interesting, actually. Other stories by the same reporter, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette staff writer Amy Schlesing, can be found here.
But this is horrible — terrorists bombed a street celebration of a sewer project in Baghdad Oct. 1, killing 41 civilians, including 35 children.
The News from Iraq
I was going to write about this and this, earlier today, but got distracted on trying to help the Flood victims here in Costa Rica, something I wish more conservative commentators like Wizbang would take up, considering Costa Rica was…
“That’s just how journalism works.”
That’s a cop out. Journalism isn’t just about selling newspapers, it’s also about informing the public. This is why the MSM is dying: the refusal to acknowledge their responsibility to the public. The MSM gives an F-U to the their public service role and then wonders why they are a dinosaur.
Can anyone say that they can honestly assess the Iraq war when bad news is trumpeted in the MSM and good news is not reported at all? Do people that predict civil war know what percentage of the Sistani backed Iraqi National Party (??? I think I’m missing a word) candidates are Sunni? How many Americans know there’s ANY Sunni candidates in Sistani’s party?
C’mon Matthew. Twenty-three journalists were killed in Iraq last year, 13 the year before. Michael Kelly, Terry Lloyd, Enzo Baldoni … those names mean anything to you? They were there, putting their lives at risk, because they thought they had a mission to inform the public. “Refusal to acknowledge their responsibility to the public,” my anus.
As for your other point, it’s our duty to report the NEWS, not propaganda. It’s not our fault there’s car bombs going off every few days.
Derek,
I appreciate your correction of the facts and your commitment to accuracy. I do, however, have a bit of a quarrel with the nature of the Iraq coverage. The question before the American people is whether or not to continue to support the goal of estabilshing Iraqi democracy via the current process (ie. military presence, elections, etc.). To do that, they need to understand the nature of the situation on the ground. This means they need a big-picture view that answers questions like the following:
1) Does the insurgency have any chance of military success?
2) Is the insurgency winning the hearts and minds of Sunnis? Kurds? Shiites?
3) Do the Iraqi people support the democratic process? (Surveys)
4) Is Allawi’s government winning the hearts and minds battle?
5) How much of Iraq is unstable?
6) Would sending more troops help?
7) Is the iraqi national guard becoming effective?
a) Is desertion a big problem, or a liveable one?
b) Where the ING is taking over security duties, is it as effective as the Americans?
c) Will there be sufficient ING numbers for a serious security handover?
8 ) Does the situation on the ground suggest the possibility of civil war?
9) Would the Iraqis themselves favor immediate US withdrawal to the democratic process?
None of these questions are answered by the continual reports of bombings, attacks, and US troop deaths. The American people need to see the big picture to put those reports in context. I could well imagine a scenario where the answers to those questions pointed to a good chance of eventual success, but pubic opinion turned decisively against continued American engagement because its “big picture” view was formed almost exclusively by nightly reports of American deaths. If indeed that is what takes place, then I believe the media will have failed the American people. You have a responsibility not only to get the facts of individual stories correct, not only to report on the major events, but also to ensure that the American public acquires an accurate “big picture.” That means that mundane stories on the ING and the “hearts and minds” battle are much more important than their lack of “gotcha” value would suggest.
The Superiority Of The Average Journalist
For some reason I got a trackback ping from this column, although I can’t find anywhere that my site is referenced in the post. It is a response to a column written by Lt. Col. Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force…
Derek, your own words damn you. Your choice of words reveals your mindset–which mimics that of the wire service. Unsuprising since you admit that’s your only source for the news on which your opionions are based. You doubt the LTC’s estimate of enemy dead, ascribing it to ‘best guesses by commanders on the ground.’ Yet what information do you have to refute it? An article written by someone who TOURED the area FIVE DAYS after the battle was over. Whose source of information is more likely to be accurate? But perhaps Dexter Filkins does have a better source of information than the commanders on the ground. What would that be? Where would it come from? Could it be the insurgency press release that declares they got away without major injury? The MSM (and your own) admitted insistence on placing less trust in the word of the American military than on the word of Baathist and Islamist thugs reveals exactly why the average American finds his opinion of you lower than Iraqi shit, you despicable dung beetle on the ass of history. You cannot claim to value the life of an American soldier when you openly distrust the American soldier and willingly swallow every morsel of shit the Islamists flick in your direction.
what we have here is a failure to communicate, le chat a petit!!
how many vietnamese,hmong,cambodian human beings were sacrificed on the altar of MSM so that the derek rose’s of the world could feel, what?, a purpose?
the conservative talks decorum because he thinks liberals are wrong,
the liberal has a RIGHT to lie/bend because he thinks conservatives are evil
we seek no power over the liberal, we are powerless to change them, we simply seek honesty about a persons paradigm. If youre a communist, just say you are, but don’t pretend that youre “objective” or that you don’t want “propaganda”… how about just reporting and having some bit of faith that we’re not so stupid.ok? is it so hard? thanks dad
Tom, I don’t have any information to refute the casualty numbers in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m not certain how reliable they are. I’m not questioning anyone’s integrity, just wondering, as I wrote, “how much confidence [he has] that figure.” I’m sorry you find that so offensive!
Thad,
how do you know I’m not a right-wing reporter who backed the war? Not all reporters are liberal, despite what you might have read.I’ll fess up — you have me pegged! But we prefer the term Marxist-Leninist these days. Workers of the World Unite!Nathan, you make some good points, although I don’t know if anyone knows the answer to some of those questions. I think the upcoming elections will tell us a lot. As awful as today’s news was, it was heartening to read in the Times that Iraqis seem determined to vote. “Even if there remain only 10 people in this area, we will not retreat from giving our votes,” said Muslim Ashour, a laborer and neighbor of the mosque that was bombed, as he struggled to hold back tears.
Man, this blog could of been a mirror image of Al-Jazeera since it looks as if that’s where you get all of your information. It’s so funny to read a liberal write about what his version of the truth is, of course they don’t believe the soldiers who are actually over there do they?
Curt, I don’t know that Ryan was actually in Najaf, where the confontation with Sadr took place. A number of reporters were, not just Berenson. Do you honestly think this is something the MSM would cover up?
Sorry you don’t like the site, but I’d caution you about making assumptions!
I was going to write a response to you on my blog, but I deleted it because all it did was piss me off the more that I wrote.
I’ll just ask you one question, Derek. How would you like it if I wrote a book about the “news” of your family – the drunken binges, the divorces, the fights, the car wrecks, the bills not paid on time, and I NEVER wrote about any of the good things your family has done? Would you feel like I was being unfair? After all, everything I would write would be true and accurate and, by your own definition, “news”. If I wrote about the one plane crash in your family and ignored all the safe landings, would that be “fair and balanced”? Would it be “truth”?
Think about that the next time you touch the keyboard, Derek. Accuracy ONLY is not truth. Negatives ONLY are not the truth. 1323 Americans have died in Iraq. Do you know how many have lived? What percentage have never even been wounded? How many of your columns have been rejected by your editor? Are they the only measure of your success?
Funny how the media spent most of 1998 covering the Lewinsky scandal rather than all the good things Clinton was doing.
Antimedia – I know what you’re saying. I’ve TRIED to cover the safe landings at JFK, but my editors wouldn’t take the story. And what about all those countries the tsunami DIDN’T hit? And why is Iraq, Ukraine, and Israel dominating so many headlines in our world affairs section anyway? What about all the countries where there’s peace and stability?
By not reporting that sewage treatment plant, you are FAILING to present the entire picture. Multiply that by the hundreds of hospitals and clinics, the thousands of schools, the countless acts of good performed by the soldiers and Marines, what THEY are there for and are hoping to accomplish, and the end result is that you headline only that which puts US forces in an unfavorable light. In this case, those good unexciting developments are crucial to allowing the public here and in Iraq to receive a complete portrayal of the unfolding story. By withholding that information, the media is shaping perception and influencing subsequent events.
“Not all reporters are liberal, despite what you might have read.”
How many are Democrats? Reports I have seen are about the same as, hmmm, the percentage of Iraqis who support the election.
Another thing is the media obsession with being a watchdog of the government. Many in the business regard that function as more important that simply reporting the news. In this case, with troops in the field, that priority is definitely misplaced, and results in greater anti-Americanism. By your very coverage, you influence the implications and ramifications of events. The media is actually a major weapon of terrorists, as they can only achieve victory by affecting the psychology of the American public.
And finally, a couple of (more?) observations and opinions:
Brian Williams’ report on NBC Evening News last night on the evening news was a veritable drumbeat for civil war in Iraq.
Your accurate refutal of particulars of Lt. Col. Ryan’s letter does nothing whatsoever to diminish the correctness of his premise.
Bob,
No newspaper is going could cover everything going on in a nation, city or even a neighborhood. We just report on the most newsworthy stuff, whether it’s good or bad. Life is precious — so people getting blown up gets priority over sewer projects opening or soldiers distributing Beanie Babies.
I don’t dispute that most reporters lean left, and didn’t see the NBC piece. Do you disagree with Nathan Wagner’s comments (No. 4), that reporters should be trying to answer those big-picture questions?
Of course journalists don’t report on safe landing of aircraft or children who weren’t kidnapped. Those are the normal and expected occurences in an established and well-functioning society. However, Iraq is essentially a developing nation struggling against a vicious and anti-social terrorist movement bent on the destruction of any institution that would allow for the development of a liberal democratic tradition. In that context, events that would otherwise be mundane and expected occurences in Europe or America must be reported on a regular basis if we are to understand what is actually happening there. I find it hard to believe that I have to explain this relatively self evident fact to a “journalist”.
CMM – sorry, I’m a bit thick sometimes! But even in Iraq, I’m not going to do stories about planes landing safely or children not being kidnapped.
“P.P.S. I use the term “insurgents” when the enemy attacks U.S. soldiers. I have no problem calling them “terrorists” when they attack civilians.”
Derek, wtf is an “insurgent”? In your case it is a terrorist who attacks U.S. soldiers because U.S. soldiers are the only defense of civilians and they are the only ones who stand in the way of the terrorists rule by force and enslavement of civilians.
You are against totalitarianism or you are for it. There is no compromise; there is no third choice. Derek, you and people like you are the enemy. Your reporting rationalizes that this is a conflict between the two armies defending just and moral principles.
Derek, imagine that you, your family, your friends were born in Saddam’s Iraq. You live in fear. Slavery. There are no laws. Your wife is a thug’s sex toy. Your children are ignorant. There is no U.S. soldier or George Bush. There is no hope. There are only people like you in the world. There is only death. No one is coming to save you. No one cares except the “insurgents” who enjoy the entertainment of your fear, the product of your forced labor and sport of fucking your wife and daughter.
You, Derek, grant “insurgents” an equal morality to the defense and advancement of liberty, democracy, inalienable human rights.
There is a story that “in the course of human events” will be written about in glorious cause and detail by historians for ages to come. It is a statement of your character and philosophy that this news is not visible to you now.
You are against totalitarianism – or – you are for it.
David Sunderland
David, haven’t you been paying attention? I’m an Al-Jazeera loving Marxist-Leninist! Bring on the totalitarianism, so long as I can be in charge! I promise free beer for everyone.
Seriously, words are important. Terrorists are people who target civilians. It doesn’t matter what type of government they want to set up (and NO, I’m not saying all types of government are the same). Using terms like “terrorist” indiscriminately cheapens them.
And I’m sorry, David, but YOU are the enemy. Doesn’t being this self-righteous get a little tiring?
Derek, you are describing precisely what the problem is. The news business runs on negatives and sensationalism, not the “mundane” as you call it. You say your editors won’t accept positive stories? Does that not bother you? Do you not see how that creates an imbalance in what you report? The problem is simple. Your business has defined news as “anything bad, unusual, extraordinary or spectacular that happens”, not as “anything that would be of interest to our readers”.
I look forward to the day when I can get all my news from the Internet and I no longer have to be subjected to the “Traci Petersen”, “Michael Jackson” and “Coby” stories. Those are “news” because your business decides they are, not because they are newsworthy. As it is, I only read the “news” media because they are often the only source of information on certain events, but the day is coming when your business will no longer exist if you don’t get your collective heads out of your collective butts and realize that people are dying to hear stories that you aren’t telling, and they’re leaving you in droves trying to find those stories elsewhere.
Physician heal thyself.
Antimedia, I was just kidding before about the planes-landing-at JFK story I couldn’t get past my editor. I do agree with your definition of news. If people were honestly interested in coverage of sewer projects opening in Iraq, we’d cover them. And we wouldn’t cover stuff like Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson if no one cared about them. (“Coby”?)
“American lives are worth more than Iraqi shit.”
This sentence demonstrates what is wrong with modern leftism: it is fearful, pessimistic, focused on the short term, devoid of strategic vision, and sees little past the immediate gratification or disgust of the moment. Sen. Barbara Boxer at the recent Rice hearings: “No dictator is worth an American life.” Really? Then FDR’s actions in WW2 must be quite disgusting to her. JFK’s inauguration speech? “…we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Utterly wrongheaded, that one. Not like the fearful, pessimistic younger brother, Sen. Ted of today. He’s what a Democrat is supposed to be.
It also illustrates what’s wrong with the advocacy writing that is today passed off as reporting. In addition to being leftist (see above: fearful, pessimistic, focused on the short term, etc.) it is deliberately dismissive of anything that may interfere with its advocacy. The rebuilding of sanitation and hygiene in a dense population, which you dismiss as “Iraqi shit”, saves lives, but reporting this rebuilding would influence the balance of horror that advocacy editors and writers are trying to maintain on this subject. If people are told that hundreds or thousands of deaths are prevented by rebuilding sanitation facilities, then the American deaths may have meaning. If there’s enough of this complete (fair and balanced?) reporting, then viewers and readers may think the gain is worth the pain, and…well, all that advocacy writing goes to shit.
This deliberate dismissal is common in the major subjects of today’s advocacy editing and writing. Advocates either ignore the positive and promote the negative, like in Iraq, or ignore the negative and promote the positive, as in so many domestic social subjects; education, Social Security, environmental regulations, “alternative fuels”, etc.
It is these negative and ultimately dishonest traits that are diminishing the influence of modern Democrats and modern…I’m sorry, I just can’t call it reporting; it’s advocacy writing, often indistinguishable from the writing that comes from corporate or real estate promotional brochures.
Greg, I’m sorry my dismissal of Iraqi sewer project stories makes me a fearful pessimistic left-wing advocacy journalist! But maybe I have a good career ahead of me in real estate!
Derek,
I am against totalitarism, I am for freedom and individual rights. This is not self-righteous. These are either – or choices. I agree that I am your enemy because we have made opposing choices.
David Sunderland
One last try before I write you off. Why don’t we get stories like this in American news media?
You wrote, “If people were honestly interested in coverage of sewer projects opening in Iraq, we’d cover them. And we wouldn’t cover stuff like Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson if no one cared about them.”
You’re really serious? You actually believe that people don’t care about sewer projects in Iraq? Have you never heard of Arthur Chrenkoff? Can you possibly be this ignorant and be a blogger?
Antimedia, you don’t mean stories like this, do you?
My impression is that people are more interested in hearing about reading how the media is ignoring positive sewer-opening stories, than actually reading about sewer-opening stories in the MSM. Perhaps I’m mistaken?
I am familiar with Chrenkoff … he was actually kind enough to link to me, in the name of open debate. Also, read my P.P.S. above.
David, I’m for totalitarianism because I’m won’t label people who attack U.S. soldiers as “terrorists”?
Nice try, Derek, but the soldier’s hometown newspaper doesn’t count. Nobody outside of Syracuse reads it. We’re talking about the NY and national media (which are almost one and the same). Please point to stories in those outlets.
Yes, you are mistaken. It’s a shame, because you’re young and represent the future of the MSM. From your responses, that future is bleak.
Antimedia, we did some of those big inspirational “hero” stories in 2003, but I agree they’ve mostly dried up now. Thinking about this a little bit more, I do agree that most people would probably love to read some genuine, real good news out of Iraq. Hell, maybe we’ll get some in the elections next week. I sure hope so. But there also might be a reason why most of the news out of Iraq is bad.
The thing the media misses is that, I for one as an American, don’t want a simple number of how many died today in Iraq. That’s important, but I also want to know what is going on in Iraq that is moving it towards a rebuilt country that will soon have elections.
As a journalism student, I know that it is up to especially editors to decide what news story has the greatest priority and is the biggest news. The problem now is that the priorities of these editors, and many journalists, is to pick the death count, and not the big picture of what is happening in Iraq that is a concern to at least many, if not most Americans. Its a big disconnect there.
Derek,
It looks as if some of the debate here goes to what kind of story gets ratings/sells papers. If I have my history correct, the network news shows did not make money until the early eighties. Before that the networks viewed them as a sort of public service. This took the ratings pressure off and made the newsworthiness question paramount. Do you think that journalism would be better served if we could resurect that sort of arrangement for certain outlets?
“Do you disagree with Nathan Wagner’s comments (No. 4), that reporters should be trying to answer those big-picture questions?”
No, those are very valid and important questions. And of course, the life-and-death events are important.
The references to a sewer treatment plant are just as an example. I think you are missing the point, as in your point no. 19. Again you use an admittedly weak example to refute the premise. In my opinion, the portrayal of only the violence in this particular situation play into the hands of the criminals and fascists, criminal retrofascists (there’s a freebie for you, it applies to them all…), who want to derail progress. The media acts as a psychological force multiplier to every car bombing, et al. I think they should re-evaluate their ethics and place that concern up high on the list of considerations.
I think that you personally and certainly the media in general view the portrayal of positive events as propaganda for the US. Others have stated this in different ways,and the whole of most comments is respectful but this afternoon you are reacting defensively to certain points in a way which enables you to maintain your preconditions. Understandable, but disappointing.
You said, “…we did some of those big inspirational “hero” stories in 2003…”
As if such was a big production or required a special effort. That very characterization depicts a bias against the endeavor. Think about the hundreds of thousands of personal human-interest stories in that country right now, much bad but much good and hopeful for the future. And we’re missing it. And I am not happy. CBS is ruined, the NYT is a bird-cage rag, and the rest follow suit.
Nathan,
Isn’t that what blogs are all about? Despite the impression people may have gotten from this particular post, I’m very excited about how the blogosphere is and will transform the media. I’m certainly not a blanket defender of the MSM. I had the chance to interview the Powerline guys when they were named Time’s blog of the year, and asked one of them if he thought blogs would ever supplant the MSM. He didn’t think so as the mainstream press has so many more resources. But I wonder. I mean, they have more readers than a lot of newspapers … eventually, people will be able to make a lot more money off blogs, I think.
I haven’t read all the comments so if this is repetitious please excuse me. You state that you call those who attack US troops “insurgents” nad those that attack civilians “terrorists”. What is the logic of that? Presumably they are the same folks, primarily Sunni Bathists, and they certainly have the same intent: to prevent the majority of Iraqui’s from forming a freely elected government. It is a distinction without a difference except for those who want this effort to fail. vty kent schmidt
I said, “…this afternoon you are reacting defensively to certain points in a way which enables you to maintain your preconditions.”
But I missed this comment by you, “Thinking about this a little bit more, I do agree that most people would probably love to read some genuine, real good news out of Iraq.”
I want to give you credit for considering at least some of what is being thrown at you today.
antimedia makes a good point. The stories are appearing in hometown, let’s say smaller media outlets, but have no chance of percolating upwards. And I wonder what appears on the wire services.
One more thing, my complaints and I think others’ here apply as much if not more to editorial decision-making than the considerable efforts of reporters.
Derek-
I have a somewhat different perspective on the same issue discused here, relevant though. I have served in the IDF untill Nov ’03 and then I came to the U.S (im a citizen ) and there is a big gap between reality there and what is reported. IDF soldiers are portraid as brutal killers who have little or no compunction toward killing children. How about a story about the Palestinian “insurgents” (a.k.a murderouse terrorists) instructing those same children to charge IDF forces durin a riot with toy/mock weapons so that a soldier who is under fire from the real combatants suddenly sees an armed figure materialise out of the black smoke of burnig tires and point a weapon at him? Then the reports sent back to the U.S and Europe describe how well armed IDF troops shot and killed a 12 year old boy durin a demonstration. Or that terrorist engineers use children to transport bomb components to the desired location for an ambush becouse they know IDF soldiers will not fire on them, and then the engineer can sneak there unburdened, assemble and set the bomb? Or the children killed transporting said components? That does happen quite often, I was guarding while four men a couple of hundred feet away flew apart because the bomb they were trying to smuggle prematurely detonated. Or these many incidents at crossing/checkpoints, why not say that Israel has those to let Palestinian workers into Israeli territories to work for the day and the terrorists use that to enter the country proper and kill civilians or to suicide bomb the checkpoint itself (and then many of the victims are actually Palestinian)? Hell, we are required now to shoot farm animals when they wander alone toward us becouse they have used “suicide donkeys”. I cannot link you to articles or the sort as this is from when I was in the army and I know the truth via experiance and so that was a year+ ago. How about a story about hate propaganda in Palestinian schools:(http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Ending_the_Incitement.asp ). I am not saying MSM stories are always inacurate but they are incredibly lopsided.
P.S I found an example for one of my examples: (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2005/01/deadly_childs_p.html), there are a bunch of example here.
P.P.S Sorry I cant link properly, I dont know how, Im new to all this.
Bob,
Thank you. Here’s one thing to ponder, though. Don’t “hero” stories also give a “distorted” view of a soldier’s life in Iraq, a big complaint in people’s earlier comments? I mean, doing stories on the heros who win the Silver Star, and not the everyday grunts …
Okay, I’m being facetious of course. (And yes, sure, they’re all heros, even the ones who don’t win the Silver Star). But my point is just that journalism is about extremes, not the ordinary.
Kent,
Good question. From what I understand about 20 or 30 different groups that comprise the insurgency. No question Zarqawi and his sick group of thugs are terrorists, but I don’t know if all of the other groups have attacked civilians.
I know that might be an unsatisfying answer, or seem like splitting hairs. But as a reporter you have to be prepared to answer a lot of “what if” questions from editors — “what if this, this and this — then isn’t your story wrong?”
Dan,
I’ve opened up enough of a can of worms with this post — I’m not going to get drawn into a discussion of the reporting on Israel/Palestine! But eesh, “suicide donkeys.” No question there’s some sickos out there. I’m glad you survived the experience.
Here’s another thought I’ve been pondering.
If Iraq is slipping toward civil war, the insurgency is gaining strength, the Coalition failing to win Iraqis’ hearts-and-minds, if the troop levels are woefully inadequate and Iraqi security forces poorly trained and untrustworthy — then can we all agree it would be pretty irresponsible for the press to be focusing on happy news stories about sewer plant openings? It would sorta be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; sticking one’s head in the sand.
If, on the other hand, Iraq is moving steadily toward democracy, if things are getting better and better, if 80% of Iraqis are going to turn out to vote next week, if the average Iraqi is revulsed by the insurgents’ tactics, if the U.S. military dealt the insurgency a crushing blow in Falluhah and are winning Iraqis’ hearts and minds — then yeah, the media portrayal has been far too negative.
Now, I really don’t know which of those two scenarios is closer to the truth. I mean, I’m not a military expert, haven’t been to Iraq and haven’t read any of those books Ryan mentions in his article. Some of the press accounts I’ve read certainly suggests Scenario One is closer to the mark – but it’s a bit of circular argument to say that we should trust the media coverage hasn’t been biased because of the media coverage.
I certainly think the reporters in Iraq are honest, hardworking people risking their lives bring us the story. Anyone who thinks they’d cover up a massacre in a mosque needs to get their head checked.
As I mentioned before, I think ultimately that next week’s elections will be a crucial test for Iraq, and should tell us which scenario is closer to the truth.
Mr. Rose,
Do you recall all the fury unleashed by the alleged looting of the Iraq National Museum?
Some of your highest-paid colleagues blew that story and NEVER admitted their mistakes.
Iraq Antiquities Revisited.
I’ve been teaching for a long time and know poor work when I see it. The MSM’s initial coverage and academia’s knee-jerk reaction (my field, sad to say) reflect very badly on our professions. Be a man and accept it. Read my humble investigation and tell me what you think.
*
Mr. Rose,
>I certainly think the reporters in Iraq are honest, hardworking people risking their lives bring us the story. Anyone who thinks they’d cover up a massacre in a mosque needs to get their head checked.
You are simply naive. Journalists have several Achilles’ heels and one of them is the liberal master-narrative they carry around in their heads that tells them that Bush is the Devil and American soldiers are baby-killers. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. It’s the same in my area, academia. Again, the story of the looting of the Iraq National Museum, mentioned above, is illustrative. The journalists on the spot did NOT ask tough questions of the people on the scene because what they were being told FIT their preconceived notions.
I hope this isn’t too subtle for you. I know you’re trying to be straight-forward, but I’ve been in the business of interpretation and evaluation of texts TWENTY years longer than you.
The power of the internet is that now for the first time we, the readers, the consumers, can RESPOND directly to the slanted news you are trying to peddle — news that you don’t even KNOW is slanted.
And it’s has only just begun.
*
Jeffrey, with all respect, I think you’re reaching. The number of artifacts looted was less than initially reported, about 14,000 instead of 170,000, as the Times noted in a March 31, 2004 story. But the museum was still looted of many of its most precious items, including the Warka Vase (later recovered under the amnesty program). And yes, U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry at the time.
I’m not saying the press shouldn’t be criticized for exaggerating the extent of the looting, but the shitstorm you lay on us is just as exaggerated. How did the reporters’ ideology blind them to what actually happened? (musuem staff hiding some of the artifacts before the war to prevent looting). And your line about Burns and McGeough “cooling their heels at a desk somewhere” is pretty damn unseemly, since a cursory examination would show they’re both in Baghdad.
Everyone has a certain narrative, or view of the world, they carry around in their heads. It’s why Lt. Col. Ryan’s essay rocketed around the blogosphere as fast as it did, despite its substantive errors.
A little more on John F. Burns, the Pulitzer-Prize winning NYT correspondent who Jeffrey accuses of “cooling his heels on a desk somewhere” while other reporters are “actually … gasp! … researching the story”:
* He was kidnapped, blindfolded and threatened by supporters of Moktada al-Sadr while reporting from Kufa in April 2004.
* Before the invasion, he was hounded by Iraq’s secret police and information ministry for writing stories with headlines like, “How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?”
* He nearly collapsed from exhaustion after returning home from Baghdad after the fall of Iraq.
* He’s also been kicked out of China and reported from Sarajevo and Afghanistan.
Mr. Rose,
A month after the events, McGeough was definitely cooling his heels outside of Iraq. I fact-checked that myself, but you are free, of course, to double check.
And, by the way, are you tone-deaf? You can’t hear sarcasm?
“Pretty damn unseemly”? Is this a joke? Do you know anything about McGeough’s politics? I do. It isn’t “unseemly.”
And you STILL have the numbers wrong. Jeezus.
>501,000 artifacts in total, of which 2% (8,560) still missing
Check my blog entry again. It’s at the end and I provide sources.
>How did the reporters’ ideology blind them to what actually happened?
Do I have to spell this out for you again? McGeough ASSUMED that the American soldiers were barbarians and whatever the Iraqi guard told them MUST be true because its perfect alignment with his view of America and its soldiers. Mr. Rose, there was no cross-checking or corroboration. Basics in your profession, aren’t they?
I read many, many of McGeough’s articles when I researched that blog entry. His commentary pieces bleed into his hard-news articles. I witnessed it time and again. However, even in his first article, Burns was more cautious than McGeough, and he is, of course, a fine journalist. But the lure of the BIG STORY even got the better of a journalist of his stature. Different man, different Achilles’ heel.
Listen, there are many fine journalists, some of them are my friends (James Glanz for the NYTimes, for example) but journalism as a profession hasn’t been critically analyzed or challenged enough until the past few years.
The next few years, believe me, are going to rough on journalists. I kid you not. Get used to it.
Admitting that your profession has serious problems is a first, essential step. If you can’t do that, you’re going to be sidestepped. It’s as simple as that.
You want more evidence?
If Sarah Boxer Were a Blogger ….
The Myth of the Foreign Correspondent.
You also might want to look at Jeff Jarvis’s comments on the article by Spinner.
*
Mr. Rose,
I have just made my comments about Burns. I think he is a very good journalist. But he did NOT produce any follow-up on what he originally wrote. Other journalists and bloggers were left to seek the truth.
Man, are you so sad that you have to create a PATRON SAINT out of Mr. Burns?
Phew!
Let’s go, tiger!
*
Jeffrey, I won’t have time to respond until probably late tonight, but you can read my take on the Boxer affair here.
Mr. Rose,
It would be Un-American of me to respond while football is being played. Agreed. We set aside our pikes while our gridiron heroes smash each other.
And, of course, at halftime, I’ll read your comments on L’affaire Boxer.
*
Derek:
There is a big difference between reporting about whats happenning
in US or Australia, whether thousands of flights are successfully
taking off and landing, and some flight crashing and so on; and IRAQ.
There is a WAR going on in IRAQ which is part of a larger global WAR
(similar to the cold war but against terrorism, fueled by militant
Islam.) This war in IRAQ is not just shooting and killing. Building roads,
sewage plants, making schools, etc. etc. are equally important actions of this
war. So when MSM news reports exaggerate on the looting of museum and the correction
(if any) appears in the nth page, then the exaggeration sticks in people’s
mind. In my workplace not a single person knows about the exaggeration,
but every one knows about the looting. You might take your own poll and
verify this. This single exaggertaion is repeated all over the world as
a proof that US went to war for oil, not to help IRAQ achieve democracy.
…
When MSM reports every act of the terrorists (or insurgents as you call it sometimes)
because they are negative, and fail to report most of the acts of the
US soldiers and Iraqi authorities as most of them are positive, isn’t it
obvious that they are creating an unbalanced image. Doesn’t the
MSM then become the propaganda tool of the terrorists?
You mentioned that most of Cherenkoff’s pointers to positive
news about IRAQ are to MSM articles, and wondered what is this complaint about
MSM not giving positive coverage. The answer is: For negative news you do
not have to go to 20 different newspapers. A single NYTimes,
or WashPost, or whatever would suffice. For positive news you need to compile,
as a single MSM outlet will have 1 positive article to X (my guess is X > 10)
negative article. Thats why so many of us eagerly wait for Arthur’s compilation,
to balance the negativism accumulated by reading one or 2 MSM outlet.
Having said all this, I appreciate your blogging and response to the
comments. You seem to be genuinely interested in understanding the
complaint that many of us have against MSM. Hope I have helped a bit.