| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Michael Yon: "Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed" |
| 2007-10-22 |
| I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth. No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public. Today I am in Iraq, back in a war of such strategic consequence that it will affect generations yet unborn—whether or not they want it to. Hiding under the covers will not work, because whether it is good news or bad, whether it is true or untrue, once information is widely circulated, it has such formidable inertia that public opinion seems impervious to the corrective balm of simple and clear facts. . . . To illustrate the absurdity to which this conceit of the collective has grown, I’m tempted to borrow from the boy in the fairy tale, only this time pointing to and shouting at the doomsday-sayers parading by: “Hey, they aren’t wearing any clothes. . . . ” Except in this case, I realize I am not a lone voice. Furthermore, with the help of other clear-eyed individuals, I may actually be in a unique position to do something to remedy this, if the experience I had with the AP response to my challenge to investigate and report on the disturbing gravesites in the Al Hamira village is any guide. Although I can’t answer to the cause of the problem, I humbly offer permission to media outlets to republish excerpts of the dispatch or the dispatch in its entirety, including my photographs from the story (if used as they are in the dispatch) at no cost during the month of July 2007. I only ask that the site receive proper attribution and that any publication taking me up on the offer email the website with the details. . . . That offer was dying on the vine until Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee took the Associated Press to task for their bungled reportage of a different mass graves news story, using my dispatch as a comparison. Although it took a little back and forth, and some additional pressure from all the other bloggers who started tracking on the topic, the AP finally dispatched a reporter to the scene. The resulting article was picked up by at least one other major media outlet, reaching thousands more people. This got me to thinking: what if I made a similar offer on a more permanent basis to a large media syndication, say, the National Newspaper Association? This is where my readers come in, at least those among them who share the concern that the distorted picture most Americans have of the situation in Iraq has strategic (and disastrous) implications for this war, our national security, and the stability of one of the most volatile regions on the planet. Those readers can first check to see if their local paper is a member of the NNA. Because only NNA members will be able to ” . . . print excerpts of Michael Yon’s dispatches, including up to two of his photographs from each dispatch. Online excerpts may use up to 8 paragraphs, use 1-3 photos, and then link back to the full dispatch on his site saying ‘To continue reading, click here.’” If their local paper is a member of NNA, readers can contact the editor, urging their participation. [If Bob Owens’ experience is a reliable indicator, this might take several, uh, prompts.] By encouraging their local daily or weekly newspapers to reprint these dispatches in their print editions, more people without internet access can begin to see a more accurate reflection of the progress I have observed and chronicled . . . . There is a cost to this. By making these stories available to NNA members at no cost, I have to forego any license fees they might otherwise generate. Although the newspapers who participate in this venture won’t have any additional costs, that also won’t reduce the expenses I incur to continue producing work that many commenters say needs to be before a wider audience. But it certainly gives those same commenters an easy way to put some walk behind all their talk. Reader support is critical and highly appreciated, because I depend on my readers for all the funds required to do this work. I have been trying to thank each and every person who has helped—something of a feat in itself—but I want to say it clearly: Your support is hugely appreciated. . . . OK, kids, here's what to do: 1. Contact your local newspaper, and urge them to pick up Michael Yon's dispatches. 2. If you have the scratch, hit Michael Yon's PayPal link. 3. (This is my idea.) E-mail the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" every time that Michael Yon rolls out a new dispatch and urge James Taranto to flag it in his column. Better yet, e-mail WSJ Op-Ed editor Paul Gigot or assistant editor Brendan Miniter and suggest to them that they pick up Michael Yon as a permanent columnist. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #8 Make that "could go MAD" .... ahemm. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-10-22 23:53 |
| #7 TW, Burns was the Baghdad bureau chief for the NYT until just recently, and indeed he is the real thing - a professional, fair-minded, very smart, and thorough. I saw this first-hand. He earned and received superior access, because we knew he'd get it right. He's no youngster, has been to a few rodeos, and is a very savvy guy. It was interesting to see how the whole press contingent respected him, even the more numerous average types who were less sophisticated, less experienced, and therefore naturally "skeptics" about all things US or military. I think he exerted a dramatic positive influence on the younger bureau colleagues (Semple, Tavernise). The mystery always was (and we never raised it directly, seeing no point and wanting to avoid putting him on the spot) how a consummate pro like Burns interacted with the pathetic lefties back in New York who edit the paper. My impression was that his copy was barely touched. If one has the stomach and patience, one could examine the past few years of NYT coverage and note a big difference between most Iraq-origin reporting and that coming from the Beltway. Michael Gordon also deserves an honorable mention. I like to think of him as "growing on the job", as his earlier military reporting, including the book on the '91 war, I found superficial or unpersuasive. But he's put in the time on the front lines episodically the past two years and delivered some detailed and often positive stuff. The poison Yon notes - which clouds minds from Bali to Buenos Aires to anywhere the BBC is heard - is the most depressing thing. No, scratch that - the MOST depressing thing is coming back to the US from Iraq and finding the levels of indifference, hostility, and misinformation among "educated" Americans I've encountered. One could go made just imagining how the world would be if major media, academia, and related elites had any understanding, moral compass, or intellectual integrity ... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-10-22 23:51 |
| #6 Hmmm... The Washington Post is a member, however, The New York Times is too cool to belong. Mrs. Bobby thinks the WaPo has redeeming values; she has no such illusions about the Times. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-10-22 12:19 |
| #5 What is the name of the one reporter at the New York Times who did good work in Iraq? John Burns? How about forwarding this to them, or would that turn them Mr. Yon in defence of their profession? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-10-22 12:00 |
| #4 Darth what good is pointing out that a scorpion acts like a scorpion? It's their nature. I fault DoD and the Generals in particular for acting like the frog thinking the scorpion would act otherwise. All wars are fought on two fronts, on the battlefield and at home. During WWII the War and Navy Departments ran a large scale PR program. Since the end of WWII the Generals have been happy little children to outsource the telling of the story to MSM. It saves them lots in manpower and expenses. What they have failed to grasp from Vietnam to today, is that you can win every fight with the enemy on the field of combat and still lose the war at home. Their suppression of the troop blogs, instead of coopting them and exploiting the technology and means to get the message directly home, demonstrates their abject failure to conduct the full spectrum of war in the modern world. Simple - offer a better quality product free and you'll get a big chunk of the game. That takes a commitment of resources the Generals do not want to do. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-22 11:03 |
| #3 After WWII, the Communists tried to infiltrate the film industry in order to gain a lever for molding public opinion in America. However their rough handedness (they threatened to throw acid in Ronald Reagan's face) led to left-oriented actors like Bogart distancing from them and to ironbar fights with right wing people like Kirk Douglas. That plus the fact that the few "Commie movies" getting abyssal audiences and raised hostility against their producers led to the studios purging their staff of Communists (the so-called witch hunt in Hollywood who had little relation with Mc Carthy's activity). The more I think about it the more I believe that if Communists tried to control teh movie industry they would also try to infiltrate the MSM. After all this is a much better lever on public opinion than Hollywood. You can also bet that since the stakes were higher, the people controlling teh operation woumld be better and would not make the same mistakes than the "Hollywood Commies". Perhaps tehy didn't proceed directly but by infiltrating the teachers in journalist schools (ie the peole who would decide who would graduate). The goal was fill th MSM with people who were not necessarily Communists but at least left-orinted, America haters and manipulative. I think they succeeded. The fruits were to be seen twenty years later when Americans were lied out of Vietnam. I think we are still reaping those fruits. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-10-22 10:57 |
| #2 WSJ is only "right" on their op-ed pages. The hard news is "left". Michael is too pragmatic and too embedded vs. lounge lizard type reporter for hard news at WSJ. If he goes op-ed then he is right-wing biased. No win. Best to have him picked up by NNA or other syndicate. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-10-22 09:30 |
| #1 The MSM is responsible for this outrage. They are responsible for the failings of the PR war. They are responsible for the failing security because of the PR bullshit. They are traitors, plain and simple and should be treated as such. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-10-22 09:29 |