Ignorance: The Home Front Enemy
Eric M. Johnson, a veteran of the Operation Iraqi Freedom, notes:
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don’t get much notice – or in many cases, any notice at all.You should probably read the whole thing. Then contemplate that this more or less matches the experience of weblogs in general. We see countless weblogs run by soldiers who are working over there who are reporting that things are going extraordinarily well with some frustrations, and then we get "professional" press reports that do nothing but emphasize every negative thing and rarely note any of the good news. As Stan Coerr, another veteran of the current conflict, puts it:Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.
Let there be no mistake, those of you who don't believe in this war: the Ba'ath regime were the Nazis of the second half of the 20th century. I saw what the murderous, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein wrought on that country through his party and their Fedayeen henchmen. They raped, murdered, tortured, extorted, and terrorized those in that country for 35 years. There are mass graves throughout Iraq only now being discovered. 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, liberated a prison in Iraq populated entirely by children. The Ba'athists brutalized the weakest among them, and killed the strongest. I saw in the eyes of the people how a generation of fear reflects in the human soul.You should probably read his whole piece too.
The difference, as near as I can see, is that the soldiers blog about the trees, while Rajiv Chandrasekaran blogs about the forest.
What I mean is this: Soldiers individually can recount the successes they have had, albeit with frustrations, but Chandrasekaran is focusing on the larger picture, which encompasses the politics of the CPA as well as individual units' successes. When viewed in the aggregate, a far more negative picture of the Iraqi occupation emerges.
Interestingly enough, many of this occupation's failures seem to be with the political leadership, rather than with the military leadership.
I have to disagree. Yes there are individual acts of kindness and empathy that don't get any play because they are actually pretty small and disconnected, but, when the news media devotes no time to a brilliant campaign to isolate and destroy Sadr's army I think the fix is in. Also no news coverage of regional governments being set up and voters casting votes in regional elections. The final straw is todays headlines that the army is recalling retirees is beyond belief. The army is calling to active duty reservists in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). After three years of war why can't they get it right. Headline first then verify?
Reporters generally use a few examples to "illustrate" what's going on. This works only if they choose examples which truly represent the situation. But it also creates a big temptation to report only examples which suit your ideology and pretend that you've "proved" that you're right.
Conclusion: Reporting will be always be lousy unless it is done like scientific research (in which case it will be boring:)
Wow. So a single 31 year old reporter working in Baghdad is able to see "the whole picture" while soldiers and marines all over the country are not able to see it.
Interesting theory, but I think not. You want to see the big picture, read this and read this, just for starters.
Sorry, but the reporter in Baghdad who sends back stories about "3 Marines killed here" "2 Marines injured there" or "30 Iraqis injured and killed here" is not reporting "the forest," but a different set of trees. It's classic cop-shop reporting, running the crime blotter, and local papers in the US do it every day. But they also have metro pages that focus on other things going on locally, what people sometimes call "feel good" features. The news out of Iraq reflects none of that balance.
Coverage that I've seen in the Post and elsewhere implies a situation in which good is accomplished on the ground, but other setbacks occur, either through faulty planning, insurgent strikes, or mismanagement.
And I'm not just looking at reporting from Baghdad. Check this, an ombudsman piece from the Post. It addresses some of the elements you raise.
Oh, and let me stipulate one more thing ...
The handling of Sadr was impressive once it got going -- including the fact that Sadr was given a way to save face, at least a little bit, by claiming "victory."
That he can claim to have defeated American troops is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that his militia is decimated and diarmed -- and that Sadr himself has apparently decided to become a politician instead of a resistance fighter.
Pennywit:
What I am talking about is the depth of coverage. No discussion about the tactics, alliances, abandoning of Sadr by the clerics, etc. What I have seen is the news media using a very soft voice to address this issue. Thanks for the response.
Richard:
I think I did see some addressing of that issue in the pages of the Post. To be honest, though, I can't be sure. In a given day, I get my news from three newspapers, two cable channels, and at least eight blogs that write from a variety of perspectives, so I can't say with certainty where I saw it.
--|PW|--
Richard,
I can say that I've heard the point about the abandoning of Sadr by the clerics made both on NPR and in the Washington Post. What I haven't heard on either is the fact that, not too long ago, the US insisted that Sadr had to be arrested and tried for murder (so much for anti-war media bias). That he can claim to have defeated our military is, I suppose, unimportant. The fact that our threats and moral condemnations may be seen as hollow is a much bigger problem.
The Iraqi's are open to accepting humanitarian aid.
They are resisting us because we continue to insist on privatizing their economy.
shep,
"The fact that our threats and moral condemnations may be seen as hollow is a much bigger problem." Hmmm. I think the Iraqis are as familiar with the nuts and bolts of politics as we are. Politicians try to keep their promises. Circumstances intervene. I'm not sure how large this problem really is, especially compared to the 'pull out now' crowd here. Now that's a really big problem.
Yours,
Wince
Wince,
Can't say I'm surprised that you look at the Bush administration's word as merely the mutable "nuts and bolts of politics" (perhaps that’s also why you don’t see a lie as a lie). However, when it comes to international politics, our credibility couldn’t be more important. We’ll find out in November exactly how much it weighs in domestic politics.