Bloomberg News reports that Iraq's oil production facilities have been steadily improving, and may top $1 billion in exports this month. Too bad it's buried deep within the business section and not front page news. But it's just another one of countless pieces of good news coming out of Iraq, so why should it get so much attention when we've got more bad news to sell?
Bill Hobbs also points me to this terrific profile of Alpha Company in Iraq, that you all ought to read.
It really is a good piece. On the other hand, fairly near the beginning, they make careful note of the 6 killed and 9 wounded the company has taken since arriving in Iraq. A little later, they note that Alpha company sees more action than most companies in Iraq, and that they spend more time in hostile territory than most other companies. Then a good bit further down, they note that they've killed 47 insurgents, and don't even mention at all how many captured or wounded enemies they took out.
Note the interesting disparity. We start with the tragic losses. Only if we keep reading for several paragraphs do we realize that these are the guys who are seeing the most action, the most hostile fire, which makes their low casualty rate rather remarkable. Then we have to go a good bit further down and pay close attention to realize that our guys are taking out nearly eight enemy combatants for every one that we lose.
It's a nice story, it really is, but it's amazing how bad news comes first, but good news is buried and underplayed.
As ever, our primary enemy in the War on Terror here on the home front is excessively slanted news coverage. Or just plain shoddy and irresponsible reporting. This piece isn't shoddy, it's actually rather nice. But we still find the negative tilt prevalent, and the positive underplayed. More people ought to complain about this sort of thing.
* Update * Today's Wall Street Journal has a similar story on the same riff: we're killing and capturing enemy combatants at an incredible clip, and every attack on coalition forces results in a retaliation that winds up capturing or killing more former Saddam loyalists, Islamist radicals, etc.For example, you may remember how the hotel the assistant Secretary of Defense was in that got hit with some missiles. You probably saw pictures of it on the news. But were you aware that within hours they had captured those responsible, and that those captured ratted out some other Saddam loyalists who were also then captured?
After giving us example after example just like this (go read the story and you'll see), here's the money quote:
"The death of an American soldier is front page news, while the death of his attacker is buried deep inside the paper, if reported at all."
I think more people are catching on to this, fortunately.
Dean,
But how else are they going to convince us that Iraq is a terrible mistake and we need to get rid of Bush in 2004? :-)
I didn't know this. Thanks for the link.
I seem to recall another conflict where we had a good "kill ratio": Vietnam.
Well, Dean, in this case I think the old cliche "if it bleeds, it leads" holds true.
Also, (at least concerning this lead) my Journo teacher pounded into my head two lessons:
-What's the most important fact of the story? This depends on your audience.
-Different people develop different ledes.
Actually, after reading the lede in the "Alpha" story, I don't they started out so bad. In fact, I think it's pretty good. I've always been a sucker for a neat turn of phrase. :)
I dunno. The story doesn't sound so negative to me, but then I expect a company in their position to run into the problems they describe. And I don't think their casualties are so bad.
Hell, for the Sunni triangle they're good.
What does someone who isn't in the service, or a milhistory nut think of that story?
Wow, George. That must mean we're losing, right?
The point isn't the "kill ratio," George. The point is the media focuses on only one side of each battle.
Imagine if the press had reported that, at the Battle of Midway during WW2 in the Pacific only that the japanese had sunk the American aircraft carrier, the USS Yorktown.
Americans reading and hearing that press covearge, not knowing that the U.S. had sunk FOUR Japanese carriers and wreaked great damage on the navy of the Empire of Japan, might have begun to lose hope in the war effort.
I understand why the press covers the deaths of even a single American soldier in Iraq - it is largely because we are losing so few soldiers that the death of even one is still news. During past wars, the death of one soldier was not news as it happened hundreds and even thousands of times a day. But if the press is going to report each American death, it should be fair and put those deaths in context. And part of that context is how the enemy fares after attacking U.S. troops.
Kill one of us, and death and vengeance will be visited upon you sevenfold and more.
And this time, you have no Soviet Union or Chinese Empire behind you.
This country has literally turned on itself. The media is like Tokyo Rose and the terrorist propaganda they spout daily is sickening. I'd say this country is more divided today than it was during the civil war. The self-flagellation and self-hate is beyond bizarre. Strange times indeed.
Linked to it, Dean. And I've got more comments on the Battle of Midway and lopsided press reporting on my blog. Just trolling 'cuz I know Dean won't mind.
The kill ratio is no surprise. Victor Davis Hanson forecast it, from looking at the historical record of Western armies fighting non-Western foes, all the way back to Salamis, Marathon, and Plateae.
The enemy in Iraq is trying to get us to withdraw, with the help of our own press. We are trying to destroy them utterly. They will run out of manpower well before we run out of bullets.
What is also interesting is how we're making battle-hardened troops out there; the long-term benefit of having a cadre of battle tested soldiers is immense. For years now, our boys will go in with at least a substantial portion of the personnel knowing precisely how things will play out.
That Sgt Oquendo deserves a medal for sticking with his troops.
I find it ironic that in a war that supporters said was NOT "blood for oil", that the "victory" you're talking about is... oil.
Seems to put a whole level of legitimacy to the naysayers who said it was always about the oil.
Kill ratio is misleading. The news not conveyed is, what's the particular military unit accomplishing? What did it do, what successes, what problems, and what lessons learned?
Our learned Editors prefer to ignore the successes and lessons learned - but how the hell can they call their product 'news'?
Derek, try putting some meaningful substance into the vague phrase "it was always about the oil." I dare you.
For instance, as the US occupied Kuwait after liberating it -- then promptly withdrew and derived not a single oil-related benefit -- and as the US effectively controlled Saudi Arabia's oil-producing Eastern Province (where the bulk of our Desert Storm forces were staged) -- then promptly withdrew and derived not a single oil-related benefit -- and as the US was a major customer for Iraqi oil under the UN Food for Oil program prior to liberation ..... what is your point?
Switch off your irony circuits and try to gain some basic understanding of the world economy and the oil business. Oil is plentiful, its production is widespread and growing more so, and the most significant impact of Iraqi liberation and return to world markets -- an increase in Iraqi crude flowing to those markets -- could have been achieved without a shot being fired, by lifting sanctions (as those noble, sophisticated, responsible, savvy French and Russians advocated non-stop from 1991 onwards). So -- what is the net benefit -- in terms of oil -- of invading Iraq and deposing the odious and menacing gangster regime there?
The increase in Iraqi oil production is good news -- obviously -- because it increases resources available to rebuild the country. And it's good news because it represents "victory" over the saboteurs and dead-enders who of course seek to halt all productive activities so as to prevent rebuilding the country.
Over the course of the next few years, Iraqi date production will surely rise and Iraqi date exports will return to their previous position as a major factor in that world market. Will this mean that the war was really "all about the dates"?
"The increase in Iraqi oil production is good news -- obviously -- because it increases resources available to rebuild the country."
Ah, so we don't need to charge the taxpayers however-many-billion-dollars it's up to now for the relief effort?
No, wait, we're still sending money over there, so what's your point there?
The point is that the Iraqis are keeping their oil, we're not taking it from them.
The point is that the Iraqi economy, which is partially based on oil, is coming back up to steam.
The point is that the Iraqis will increasingly have the funds to do for themselves, so they aren't dependent upon us.
And the point is that a lot of people have been whining that the administration "lied" because it said that the Iraqis would within short order have the means to pay for their own reconstruction--and it's increasingly obvious that the Iraqis will, in fact, have that means, very soon.
If it were all about the oil, Derek (ha! that's almost like a pun! Sorry, not trying to tease you, but... Oil? Derrick? Get it?), it's about Iraqi self-sufficiency. Which is obviously proceeding apace.
When enemies bleed, it does not lead.
Dean, I think that oil joke really shafted Derek. Not to drill the point, but it seams that I have you over the barrel on this.
Not that I like to drum it in, or anything...
My point was not that we are losing. My point was that a good kill ratio does not mean that we are winning.
Fair enough, George. But just remember, we had a good kill ratio in World War II in the South Pacific, too.
The point is that the press isn't giving us a fair picture of what's happening, and it's a problem.
Your point about the media's slant is valid, unfortunatly. When I think about the newspapers from WW2 and what journalists are doing now, I get confused. Why did the journalistic community support that conflict and not this one? More people died in the US on 9/11 than on 12/7/41. Is there something that I am missing here? On 9/12/01, the news media seemed to be on the same page as the rest of us. Something happened between then and now. Any theories?
Well, back during World War 2 reporting as a patriotic American wasn't considered "biased."
I suspect it was the journalist's experience during the Vietnam war (in Vietnam as well as in America) that changed that.
What you won't hear today is that for the first part of the war, the press (generally) enthusiastically reported whatever the Johnson administration had to say about the war.
Then the press (in a relatively short period of time) flip-flopped, and started doubting everything the government said.
There never really was any honest objectivity involved.
Me, I think the doubt became over-stated because the press was embarassed about their earlier gullible enthusiasm about the war, but that's arguable.
I will say that the Johnson administration was less than honest with some of its PR on the war. I'll also say that most of the folks in that administration didn't have clue how to run a war properly. That didn't help. :)
The upshot: journalists gained a lasting distaste for appearing to be governmental cheerleaders. Nixon's "enemies list" didn't help either.
(Yes, at least some journalists/celebrities were actively anti-American. I remember Jane Fonda.)
In any case, for the past thirty years American journalists have had an adverserial relationship with government. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think we should trust governments very far.
But such an attitude must be fortified by reason and wisdom. The adverserial attitude I referenced has now hardened into some sort of reactionary, automatic, anti-government response, at least in some ways.
Hey Ralph:
This country has literally turned on itself. The media is like Tokyo Rose and the terrorist propaganda they spout daily is sickening. I'd say this country is more divided today than it was during the civil war. The self-flagellation and self-hate is beyond bizarre. Strange times indeed.
I agree, but I think it's the inevitable result of the technological level we've evolved to. Back in the day, there were strict limits as to how much any individual could accomplish without the help of other human beings. Success was less about good ideas and more about mobilizing unwieldy mobs of people.
These days, creating and delivering new ideas which benefit the market can make you a millionaire in no time flat. And you can accomplish this without much help from anyone else.
I think the rancor and self-hatred you're noting derives largely from the self-loathing of entire swathes of the country who are waking up to realize they will have to work hard or depend on charitable handouts. Nothing is quite so alarming--or humiliating--as knowing someone else controls the source of your sustenance.