| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Media’s dark cloud a danger |
| 2003-09-22 |
| Article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution by U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Long, but worth it: On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He’d been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death. News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president’s premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives — a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself. The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security. These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks. But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I’m afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy. During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined. Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents. Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction. We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I’m afraid it is killing our troops. Will the major american media soon have their own "BBC" moment? |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #11 "Media" in this context means the electronic media; since these commonly set the tone for all mass media. These organizations, even specialized ones like CNN, are outgrowths of the entertainment industry and its unholy alliance with advertising. It is in their nature to take whatever line is best suited to a time-constrained, superficial, emotionally loaded view of events. It is also in their nature to portray guerrilla and resistance fighters and their activities in as positive a light as reasonably possible. I am convinced that this reflects the all-pervasive influence of the "illusion of rebellion" in modern advertising. The trappings and superficial appearance of defiance and rebellion have been the most-used advertising device for over 40 years. As documented by Thomas Frank in his landmark social critique, The Conquest of Cool, the 1960s Counterculture was largely an invention of the advertising industry and it remains the basis of the industry's internal culture to this day. Of course, the affinity of commercial pop-culture for terrorists and rebels is based on an illusion, and a most destructive one, since many icons of rebellion are in fact totalitarians and violent extremists. The classic example is the Stalinist terrorist Ernesto "Che" Guevara, whose grubby portrait decorates dorm rooms and yuppy warrens throughout the western world. How else can it be that leading-edge pop-culturists; people who support abortion on demand, drug legalization, and unlimited welfare; will strip naked and display themselves in public in support of medieval religious fanatics and reactionary puritans? In a democratic society, the most extreme rebels (and therefore the most salable) are often those who oppose democracy, human rights, and the values of the Enlightenment, hence the absurd spectacle of professional "non-conformists" supporting and glorifying Islamic-fascist killers. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-9-22 11:00:19 PM |
| #10 RM There was a posting over the weekend from the writing of a young woman that entered into Chechnya. I took real exception to it because , she appeared to be a budding Geraldo type - looking for a sensational story without lettign lack of facts stand in the way. Do you think that journalism become more about entertainment rather than facts and information? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-22 7:53:53 PM |
| #9 But...but....but.... If the media spent time on what is really happening and what people are dying for in Iraq there might not be time for the latest news from J-Lo and Ben! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-9-22 7:29:16 PM |
| #8 Good article, with links, at InstaPundit's MSNBC site about this. He pointed out an insight from Michael Barone that I particularly appreciated -- the media is using the wrong standard to identify "news" in Iraq. The media also have the wrong standard for what is news. It is news when there is a fatal accident at Disneyland and not news when there is not. But Iraq is not Disneyland. In a country that is occupied after decades of a brutal dictatorship, good news is news. |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-9-22 6:51:28 PM |
| #7 There will hopefully be a reckoning with the disservice our own media is doing the country as a whole. I do not miss any opportunity to tell folks who gripe about the effort in Iraq that they are being lied to, via omission. Just as the leftists in Iraq and in New York who decides what is newsworthy by this constant defeatist crap they publish, I continue to hammer away at the only theme I can: the truth. It is all any of us can do. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-9-22 6:03:06 PM |
| #6 Iraq needs a good blogger that had nothing to do with the Saddam government. Finding one is going to be almost impossible to do, but the local commanders over there need to start a search. One good blogger, putting out the straight poop on what we're doing (not just the combat, but the "public services" stuff), could shake the foundations of the US publishing oligarchy. It wouldn't cost as much as one flight from Baghdad to Kuwait, and return. It would be worth its weight in gold. Whatever, it should be published in both Arabic and English, possibly also translated into FRENCH (so the humiliated bas$$$$$ know just how much they screwed up). It should be a cross between Samizdata and Den Beste, with the possibility of comments, but not necessarily bogged down with them. It should have FIRST PERSON information, as well as what's going on elsewhere in Iraq. The purpose wouldn't be to inform Iraqis about what's going on in their country (although that would be a good thing, if more people had computer access to the Internet), but to the rest of the world, which gets its information strained, spun, and smeared. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-22 5:38:09 PM |
| #5 RM: Great post. My unsupported personal guess is that, what with it being hot outside and the possibility of being shot, the remaining reporters are spending a lot of time in the Al Rashid Hotel groupthinking themselves into an "All Is Lost" frenzy. Why drive fifty miles in the heat to interview some grunts building a school when you can have another scotch in the air conditioned bar? And besides, what could a nineteen-year old American PFC possibly teach a reporter from (cue the trumpets) the BBC? Other than courage, loyalty and self-sacrifice, that is. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-9-22 5:33:37 PM |
| #4 I've been a journalist for 30 years, the first 27 in "hard news" and I promise you there is NO excuse for the pathetically bad and biased reporting coming out of Iraq (NYT's Burns is a major exception). For anyone to ever claim that the reporters have to report the "most newsworthy" material, i.e., bad news, is nonsense. It's true that it's nigh impossible to write a breaking story on a school repair or an act of kindness, but breaking news is by no means the only copy coming out of Iraq. I've read more than on "Sunday burger" news feature on the front page of my local paper (the SF Chronicle, where I labored for 12 years) and these stories are the perfect opportunity to provide depth and perspective in news columns...that has not been forthcoming. This comes down DIRECTLY on the reporters. They shape the story, they gather the material they want to use. A editor can fuss with a story somewhat (and of course THEY can insist on a more balanced presentation, but in they end they can only work with the copy the reporter provides. The post-April coverage of Iraq has been appalling and the public is becoming increasingly aware of how lousy it's been. If readers ever really figure out how they've been hoodwinked it's goodnight Irene for a lot of publications... |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-9-22 4:17:57 PM |
| #3 I think what he says is right. There are not enough embedded reporters now and the only ones who are talking are the inside-the-beltway The american public does not see the waving Iraqis or the repainted schools and restored power plants or the constructions going on because the 'evening news' does not show it - they don't have the reporters there on-the-spot to say things like 'Today these Iraqi children are going to school for the first time... because of the reconstruction efforts of the 101st Airborne.". Any american citizen (except for Gepheart who whould be humiliated about the 'miserable failure'...) would be proud to say 'The U.S. did that!'. Instead they see 'Today 3 US Servicemen were killed... and now for the sports....". The Military and the civil services there need to start to showcase the advances and accomplishes they are making in the reconstruction effort. The restored power plants and schools and hospitals. Both to the local Iraqi civilians and the remote american public. And not just on Sunday Morning talk shows (which not everyone watches). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-9-22 4:12:57 PM |
| #2 Biden's always good for a sound bite on the Dem side, but Chuck Hagel's been on way too much lately and is so squishy I have to recheck to see if he's done a Jeffords-jump without me knowing |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-22 3:29:16 PM |
| #1 Steve, it won't happen if you go by watching what's on the Sunday talk shows. Yesterday's stuff didn't have too much that perturbed me, although I didn't watch Madeleine (by choice) on Russert. But Tim's interview with Cheyney the previous week was indicitive of what anti-idiotarians are up against. IIRC, Cheyney said he didn't know if Iraq was linked to 9-11. I thought, yeah, that makes sense, he's not overdoing it. Tues. morning Chi. Trib. headline stated "Bush:No link between Iraq and 9/11" based on some questions the prez had answered on Monday. The subsequent story focused highlighting a supposed contradiction between W's Monday words and VP's Sunday's words. But if you look in fine print, the pres'. saying there was no link, didn't contradict what Cheyney had said. Both guys are saying there's no smoking gun, but AQ and Saddam did have links prior to 9-11. That we DO know. It's up to Russert, George, the CBS and Fox people to get folks like Rep. Marshall, Lileks and Steyn on the air talking. But then that kind of initiative would alienate them with the inside-the-beltway pundits, and nobody wants to get disinvited to cocktail parties. Kristol and Will are good on their shows, but I think more bloggers /folks who get the message out through web should be on these programs. Matt Drudge knows what I'm talking about. So much reliance on the old guys. Robert Novak? Is he still alive? Why always Biden? Yeah, I know he's ranking Dem on Foreign Relations comm., but I'm tired of seeing the same old faces. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-9-22 3:04:37 PM |