Good News From Iraq: A Presidential Dodge or Attainable Goal?

Hand it to the Bush administration: in another bit of media jujitsu, public statements from the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense accusing the news media of underplaying so-called "good news" in Iraq has blunted attention to their own policies.

On the war's third anniversary, when reporters would normally be recounting the litany of missteps which got us into Iraq, parts of the news media have instead been asking about the fairness of coverage. And those questions have, of course, energized those GOP stalwarts who are dying to support this president and this war -- if only to avoid the growing pessimism about a conflict which has cost more than 2,000 American lives so far.

As Gayle Taylor from Columbus Ohio said during a press conference Wednesday: " "They just want to focus ... on another car bomb or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing, when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on Fox, to get it on Headline News, to get it on the local news?... It portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict."

It has become the question of the moment: everyone from Lou Dobbs to AOL asking consumers if the media is underplaying good news from the war (as if people whose only knowledge of the war comes from news reports can judge whether those reports are complete). What they are really asking, in this world of custom-built news, is whether the reportage from Iraq comports with what consumers expect or want to hear -- a much different question.

This is the challenge journalists face as news media move from a broadcast model to a niche model. In a broadcast world, those who gather content control the conversation, collecting news and presenting it to the biggest audience they can find. But digital technology has turned news into a niche game, where outlets must draw a smaller, specialized audience demanding news the way they want to consume it.

I looked at news coverage among the major TV networks on Tuesday, the day President Bush spoke about insurgents using the media to transmit their message, and indeed the news from Iraq was grim. Insurgents attacked a prison, freeing 30 inmates and killing 19 Iraqi policemen. A former guard at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison was found guilty of illegally using his dog to torture inmates. President Bush implied American troops would be in Iraq until after his term ended in 2008. And military authorities were investigating allegations U.S. soldiers had killed 11 members of an Iraqi family in retaliation for an attack.

In a day of news like this, would a story about an electrical plant opening or school rebuilt get much traction, anyway?

In a poignant column for American Journalism Review, a former press attache for the American embassy in Baghdad detailed the challeges facing all Western journalists trying to get a handle on Iraq: limited knowledge of language; limited ability to speak with Iraqi people for fear of kidnapping or attack; a lack of reliable statistics and information; Iraqi officials who couldn't grasp how to collect or release accurate information to reporters; and the paradox of bringing danger to areas simply by reporting on them.

"For example, we stopped taking reporters to the inaugurations of many reconstruction projects because, as we quickly learned to our dismay, publicity might invite a terrorist attack," wrote Robert J. Callahan. "On several occasions, one involving a school, terrorists struck the site and killed innocent people the day after an article or television story appeared. We concluded that good publicity simply wasn't worth the cost in lives and damage, and we stopped advertising them. It was frustrating, to be sure, but prudent."

Despite the danger, the fact that 91 journalists have been killed in Iraq so far and many more wounded (including ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff just recently released from the hospital), pieces like Richard Engel's excellent story on the dangers of reporting from Iraq can still sound a bit defensive. (Keith Olbermann took such umbrage to new heights, lambasting Laura Ingraham for suggesting reporters are phoning in Iraq coverage from hotel balconies, calling her "desperate" and "stupid.")

It seems obvious that tremendous practical limitations are making it tough for journalists in Iraq to do more than concentrate on the biggest news there -- a low-grade, guerilla-style civil war which may derail all our attempts to install a new government there. I predict we will see efforts to report on more "good news" from the region, if only to try balancing Americans' picture of a country where there is reconstruction and achievement alongside vicious violence and warfare.

But it's tough to turn your eyes away from the dead and dying, particularly when there is so much at stake.

Comments

[Anonymous]

The mere fact that you would cynically chalk "good news" up to a power plant opening says it all. There have been amazing stories of progress that have been ignored. Everybody knows the big outlets are run for and by the democratic party. Just in the past week the NYT has been caught TWICE running fake stories, and an inter-office e-mail at ABC news became public in which the head of programming was personally attacking Bush. It goes on and on. It's always been so, but now it's glaring because there's an alternative. You can't just put your heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening.

[Anonymous]

Eric,I think it would be crazy for a black journalist to cover Iraq from within. Someone your size or the size of "Big Baby" would be an east target.

[Eric Deggans]

Empty partisanship and empty racism are equally tiresome.In the case of the NYT, they have made two big mistakes, taken in by sources who claimed to be something they were not: a torture victim and abu ghraib and a victim of hurricane katrina. To transform those horrible mistakes into an overt act is simply wishful thinking on your part.The fact is, there are people who were tortured at Abu Ghraib, and there are poor victims of Katrina surviving on pulbic assitance. The New York Times' mistakes incovering these issues don't make them go away.America must find the strength to face the reality in Iraq. And while the news isn't as unrelentingly bad as the deluge of reports make it seem, what is bad is very bad and threatens to derail our entire operation there. Journalists cannot, should not and will not ignore it.

[Anonymous]

No Eric, it's 2 in the last week. There are plenty of others. The fake ballot story comes to mind. In that case they ran with a front story on the word of a single source. It's called sloppy journalism, and it's the direct result of the medias eagerness to stick it to Bush.

[Anonymous]

And if you're really interested in reporting on katrina victims and abu grhaib, why don't you ever report the rest of the story?How about a story on the respect Islam is afforded at abu graib? How about the prisoner who doesn't want to go back to his home country because he's treated so well at the prison? How about the diet and feeding regimen?Where's the story about the fact that reality doesn't support the idea that blacks died disprortionately in NO?

[Khan of the Wastelands]

How about a story on the respect Islam is afforded at abu graib? How about the prisoner who doesn't want to go back to his home country because he's treated so well at the prison? How about the diet and feeding regimen?Or how about the story when we first took Bagdhad and the people came out and tore Saddaam's statue down in the town square.How come it was never reported that those people were actually Kurds who were riding along with a US convoy.Why was it presented as a spontaneous uprising of the people of Baghdad?It's almost like someone wanted us to think we were being greeted as liberators.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

It's called sloppy journalism, and it's the direct result of the medias eagerness to stick it to Bush.Yeah, why can't the media just support the president in his time of low 30% approval ratings.I don't think the media should spend all this time reflecting the views of the majority of this country.Instead, they should just tell us what the government wants us to hear.In fact I think all media reports should be subject to government review prior to being released. That way we can make sure the reports are accurate.Better yet, how about we simply start having the government decide who is GOOD media and put them on the payroll.And the government should DEFINITELY start producing commercials and giving them to news outlets who will run them without informing anyone that the material was government produced.

[Anonymous]

Lol... That's right khan, every Iraqi hates us. They all long for saddam. We are the devil, he wasn't so bad. Give me a break.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Lol... That's right khan, every Iraqi hates us. They all long for saddam. We are the devil, he wasn't so bad. Give me a break.Define "Strawman"

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I sure wish flaming commie pinko liberals like George Will would stop writing that Iraq has been a failure and is dissolving into a civil war.Don't these lefties understand that they are encouraging the enemy?

[Khan of the Wastelands]

And in the LMFAO department, Ben Domenech has resigned from the Washington Post.

[Anonymous]

I sure wish flaming commie pinko liberals like George WillLOL ssshhhhh!!!! (whisper) george will also hates ollie north...

[canoe of the wetlands]

I bet it really gets you excited when a conservative says America is near defeat. That is what you long for, isn't it? Better a loss for America than a win for Bush? George will can have an opinion just like Michael Moore. We're talking about media coverage. Here's an example of the media spinning and shaping the news....Remember when Murtha came out with his little troop withdrawal publicity stunt? It was huge front page news. The guy had been bitching about the war for over a year, but he was presented as a hawkish virtual Republican. The story went on for over a week, and was spun into Wow, look how support is eroding!A few days later Lieberman came out and said Murtha was dead wrong. You could hear the crickets. No stories about dissension in the democratic party, no attention paid to the democrats VP nominees support for Bush. Nothing. Or how about abu grhaib? The same media that insists we need to see every picture, and endlessly debates itself over the definitions of torture and legal status, won't touch Saddams torture. When we hear about it at all, it's pretty much brushed aside. There's a ton of video footage out there to document the torture. There are tons of people who were tortured themselves. But the media doesn't think we need to hear from them. We need the pics of naked detainees, not the video of saddams torture. We need interviews with abu grhaib prisoners, but not with victims of saddams torture.Iraq may be a mess, but it sure as hell isn't what the media portray it to be.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I bet it really gets you excited when a conservative says America is near defeat. That is what you long for, isn't it? Better a loss for America than a win for Bush?Iraq is a win for Bush?With victories like these, who needs defeats?

[Khan of the Wastelands]

George will can have an opinion just like Michael Moore. We're talking about media coverage. Here's an example of the media spinning and shaping the news....Who cares what Micheal Moore thinks.Talk about a Gasbag! He makes Bill O'Reilly look like prince Charming.Remember when Murtha came out with his little troop withdrawal publicity stunt? It was huge front page news. The guy had been bitching about the war for over a year, but he was presented as a hawkish virtual Republican. The story went on for over a week, and was spun into Wow, look how support is eroding!My favorite Murtha quote is in regards to Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney and how the coward dodged Vietnam even though he was a hawk on that war.Amusingly enough, the VAST majority of Iraq War vets running for Congress this term are Democrats.But I suppose they are all just liberal traitors right?Or how about abu grhaib? The same media that insists we need to see every picture, and endlessly debates itself over the definitions of torture and legal status, won't touch Saddams torture.Why would they? That a 3rd world dictator opressed and tortured his people is hardly news. That a nation of freedom and morality like the US is now endorsing torture IS news.I can name you at least a dozen nations right off the top of my head that actively tortures and opresses it's citizens that we have very friendly relations with.I suppose we'll be invading them next?Get ready for a string of Bush "Wins" eh?

[Anonymous]

Amusingly enough, the VAST majority of Iraq War vets running for Congress this term are Democrats.khan, gotta call your bluff on this one. there's a reason why many iraq vets are popping up on democratic tickets: they're being recruited to do so.this is a (wise) political move to quash the image that many democrats are (rightly or wrongly) thought to be anti-military.a good example of this is the woman helicopter pilot who lost her legs that is running for henry hyde's seat in illinois. the democratic party openly courted her for the above mentioned reasons.i'm not saying this is bad or good just pointing out why many iraqi war veterans are appearing on democratic tickets.

[FedUpBoomerBabe]

Some of you guys parroting right-wing propaganda really ought to develop some critical thinking skills...or ought to do a wider variety of reading. Media outlets are knocking themselves out to pander to the right...hiring right wing bloggers and writers without doing due diligence--latest case in point the venerable Washington Post's hiring of Domenech, only to discover he's not only a plagiarist and bigot, but a whining excuse-maker. He's fired, now. I know you would all like reporters to parrot the Bush agenda verbatim, otherwise "the terrorists will win"...I guess it's too much to ask that you actually think independently, instead of through the very effective right-wing filter that Karl Rove has foisted upon the nation.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

khan, gotta call your bluff on this one. there's a reason why many iraq vets are popping up on democratic tickets: they're being recruited to do so.How am I bluffing?I've made a statement of fact. The vast majority of Iraq vets running in the upcoming elections are Democrats.Considering that veterans typically vote (R) in droves, I think this little factoid says something about the lack of popularity for curious George's war in Iraq.Combine that with the fact that most of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq do not think we should be there, I think this bodes poorly for the Republican party.You state that the only reason these guys are running on the (D) ticket is because they are being recruited, I respond by asking, do you not think that the Democratic party would not try and recruit vets in EVERY election?Why is it that in this particular election, most of the Vets are running on a D ticket and not an R?Bush lied to get us into Iraq. When anyone questioned what he was doing, instead of making a fact based argument to explain what we were doing invading, the Admin instead made up wild stories about WMDs and connections to Bin Laden.It worked initially because people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in a post 9/11 world.Now those lies are blowing up in his face (and sadly, in the faces of our soldiers).He has lost all credibility and his poll numbers reflect that.I personally do not think his numbers can go much lower because I think the 30% that support him are only the most fanatical of the Republican party.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I take it back, if Bush professed a love for Satan and encouraged his daughters to get pregnant and then abort, his numbers could go lower.Short of that, I think the folks who support him now will blindly follow him down whatever path he goes this next three years.

[Anonymous]

What happened to news reports being unbiased? That is a joke today. There is a war going on in Iraq I think most people realize that sadly yes, people die in a war. Why would the news coverage not honor those people by showing what they were fighting for in the first place rather than reporting the death count?