I found this letter quite interesting.

LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

Its a long editorial so i'll try to highlight some parts.



I suggest reading the whole thing before posting, but of course thats just a suggestion.

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you think news outlets are giving a comprehensive portrayal of the Iraq War?

2) Do you think that we are getting a balance between "positive" news and "negative" news?

LTC Ryan said, "In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers."

3) Do you agree with LTC Ryan's statement?

From this editorial. The post script.

My impression now is that stories from Iraq are increasingly difficult to get because American reporters are shut inside the secured sectors of Iraq and rarely take the chances to leave that area. Taking a straight military report about the improved side of things is not necessarily what our press corps is going to do for fear of forwarding along propaganda.

I wonder if Al-Iraqia or Al-Jazeera might not be the best place to look for facts about what is going on in Iraq. Of course with that it takes someone with the intent and ability to isolate the facts from the spin. Just like searching through military announcements.

I don't think there is a focused intent to show the negatives of the war, but it is the present nature of the beast.

Look at your local news, what makes the healing, the double murder or the opening of a new school?

I think the media is not as biased against the war as some its its ardent supporters think it is. I am critical of the war but also thirsty to get hard news from Iraq. I think there is very little of this. I think much of this is that reporters are not safe in the streets of Iraq, not because they are reporters but because most of them are westerners. I would love to see the emergence of Iraqi reporters who can produce stories into the mainstream media using what remains of the western standards of journalism.

Perhaps they are there and I have yet to find them?

You see, i don't agree with this if the news is proportional to what is actually happening. It is not propaganda if you match negative news with positive or vice-versa. It is propaganda if it is presented soley positive/negative.

As LTC Ryan said in his writing:




You see, this is what we are led to believe. The media controls what we believe because they are there and we are not. The only way we know what is going on is what they tell us. If they show us that the war is going badly...then it must be going badly. Again i point to the snip i posted above.



That is a good point. As anyone can see, if it can be done on the micro scale and effective...then obviously it can be used on the macro to the same effect.

Great topic lederuvdapac. The news coverage is overwhelmingly focusing on the negative. We hear almost exclusively the U.S. and coalition losses rather than the losses of the enemy. Why is that? I think that Bernard Goldberg does a great job of explaining this in his books, and I agree with him. The press is not trying to be liberal, they are liberal! They do their best to be objective by asking themselves, "how would an intelligent sane person react to this situation?" The answer is filled in with what they believe to be the answer. They think, "well I'm intelligent and sane, and I think that all wars are bad and wrong, that the United States instigated the war, therefore most intelligent sane Americans agree with that assumption and I will report accordingly." Someone back me up here.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. To me the argument breaks down like this:

Why is the news media liberal?

They are obviously liberal because they show a liberal bias.

What makes you think there is a liberal bias in the news?

Because the journalists are liberal.

Despite the fact that the news media ALWAYS goes with the sensationalistic, frightening story, the fact that they do it in Iraq means they are letting their liberal bias dictate the news? I'm sorry, but in this case I refer to Occam's Razor.

I see your point. While i do believe that the media is liberal (http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp), i do understand what you are saying. The media will show the story that will get the most attention.

But thats why i asked the question. Basically i am asking, is the media somewhat responsibile for the majority of opinion by "liberals" and the international community in regards to Iraq. Are we getting the good and the bad to see that maybe the war isnt as negative as the media is making it seem. I mean people there is constant Bush-Bashing, "the war is a quagmire", "it's another Vietnam"....yet this all stems from the images we see on tv. Is the media being responsible and reporting the story in the proper context? I personally do not think so.

Leder,

This is essentially the same thread you started a couple of weeks ago about the "Oil for Food" program. The plot's the same, but the characters have been changed to protect the "innocent/guilty?"

I suppose I can give the same answer I gave then. The only "good" news coming out of Iraq is what Rush, Scarborough or FNC manufacture. Sometimes I wonder what those guys have been smoking. Otherwise, with Iraqi security people and Americans being blown up daily, there really isn't much good news for the mainstream media to report.

You simply must start taking in more objective sources.

I posted the editorial in which i based this topic on and i believe it raises a fair amount of questions. If you bothered to read it before posting, then maybe you would have a slightly different view on things. This is a soldier fighting in Iraq who gives a completely different account than what some parts of the media display. Is he not an objective source?

In regards to the second part of your post, the answer is the same, but it is still wrong. I do not think Rush(who i don't like) and Scarborough (who i don't watch) or FNC "manufacture" good news any more than Rather, Matthews, or CNN "manufacture" bad news. You see, you believe that people are being blown up daily and that it is an ordinary occurrence for everyone that is in Iraq. But is that the whole truth and nothing but the truth? From LTC Ryan's account, it isn't. And he even informs us:



Its all about perception. You perceive Iraq to be "hell" even though you have never been there and been given a full view in proper context. All you know about is the images of death and destruction that you see on television.

Well, Leder I would hazzard a guess that you have not been to Iraq either. You should be graduating soon. I'm sure the nearest Army/Navy/Air Force or Marine receruiter would love to talk to you. Just think, you could send us a personal report from the front lines.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I wonder if they would take the Bush twins? I'm just joking. This would be a real nightmare for the Secret Service.

Correct, i have not been to Iraq and i do not perceive it to be something it may not be. I think things have gone haywire in Iraq, that is no dispute...however i do not perceive it to be "another Vietnam." I am questioning the media accounts in the same manner in which you question the Bush administration. I don't think the debate has very much to do with supposed liberal/conserv. bias but with what UJ mentioned which is the sensationalism. We are getting the bad with none of the good because the negative is what sells newspapers.

My point is that if we were getting a steady balance of both, than perhaps worldwide and even national opinion on the war would change to a more objective viewpoint.

If we really want to talk about objectivity, why don't we start right with the article... do you really think it's objective to compare 1944 battle in Normandy with Fallujah? Compare Hitler's Germany, with the most technically advanced, well-equipped, professional army at the time, with several hundred of Fallujah sandals-wearing insurgents without established supply lines, without heavy artillery or armored vehicles, without Apache helicopters or any kind of Air Force whatsoever, without anti-aircraft weaponry? Give me a break... "Well-prepared enemy"... with what? AK-47s, handmade bombs, and portable grenade launchers? I understand that every military has its own propaganda machine - morale is as necessary as good food - but let's not repeat propaganda here on AD.

I think your missing his entire point. He wasn't equating the significance of each battle from a tactical victory standpoint. What he is talking about is it's impact on the conflict as a whole. He is saying that the victory in Fallujah could (in hindsight) be a major turning point in the Iraq War just as the Battle of the Bulge was a major turning point in WW2.

I think that the author uses Normandy poorly, but for entirely different reasons. There are so few parallels between World War 2 and the invasion of Iraq that such comparisons are useless, and in my mind demonstrate a profound ignorance/confusion on the part of LTC Ryan. (Why do I keep getting a picture of Alec Baldwin when I read that name?

The point about bias INTERNATIONALLY is interesting however. There never was any popular support for the war abroad, so how can you suggest that bad publicity is the cause for current levels of dissatisfaction.

Lets say everyone hates me because I'm an arrogant jerk. (Hard I know, but for argument's sake please try.) If all of a sudden I get an interview with Babwa Wawa (Barbara Walters for those of you who don't watch SNL) in which I come across as a total jerk; wouldn't it be a bit silly for me or anyone else to think that the interview was the cause?

It's hard to say - it certainly doesn't seem that attacks in Iraq have stopped, does it? It is possible that Fallujah operation dispersed the fighters around the country, they no longer have a "wasp's nest" of sorts - but it hasn't stopped the deadly attacks.



You certainly don't propose a lobotomy for the members of the press? If they are liberal (which is subjective anyway - to our friends from Canada and UK the american press is not that liberal at all) - that's not their fault; that's the way they think. Blame their upbringing and education.

Another good point... but what if you are perceived as a total jerk by everyone (because of rumor, propaganda, whatever) and then your interview shows that you are not a jerk at all? That is kind of my point.

I don't want to make a lot of comment on international news since i don't really watch it and can only assume what they show and don't show. But i am sure they follow the same line of sensationalism as some US media outlets.

Actually my experience with the international news isn't quite like that. Of course, my exposure is somewhat limited. I catch the BBC, CBC (we are a different country dammit!) and China's english language broadcasts; which I watch for kicks if I'm up at 4am.

My observations on the BBC and the CBC are interesting though. They are perhaps EVEN less optimistic than U.S. reportage, but they are also less interested in headlines and body-counts. There is much more of a documentarian slant; with real stories being the focus. I'm not sure if it is more or less fair to the U.S. effort, but it is without a doubt better reporting.



For this argument to work in this case you have to accept that positive reportage would change public opinion. As horrified as I am that so many people (Americans et al.) have died, my outrage stems from other areas. The fact that the U.S. is doing what they said they would (in a roundabout way) by rebuilding the country and trying to instill some sense of democratic values doesn't change the fact that they (the following is just my opinion, and I neither wish to raise it as factual here or take this more interesting discussion off topic) violated numerous treatises on International Law, did irrepairable harm to the U.N., made the world more dangerous, etc.

Whether my opinions above are supported by the facts is immaterial. They are shared by a great deal of those that opposed the war. Our outrage stems not from the on-the-ground operation of the post-war occupation, but of the larger political and social implications as we see them. Positive reporting would not mediate this outrage because it really doesn't change anything. Am I glad that the U.S. IS accomplishing something in Iraq? Yes. Am I still angry at what the U.S. did (and that the people that did it are still in charge), definitely. There is little that journalism could do to change that... and I feel that my position is one shared by a great deal of people opposed to the war.

I can understand this...you have a fire. But what negative reporting does is just throw fuel on the fire. It adds to the negativity and pessimism instead of adding optimism that things will work out for the better. I do believe that if the Iraqi elections go reaosnably well and there is some positive reportage on it, that many opinions will change for the better. However, the constant bombardment of negativity in the media has really hurt the United States worldwide and on the homefront.

In regards to people sharing your view...while i can't disagree, i can dispute some of the reasoning that people share your opposition. Abu Ghraib, the battle for Najaf, Fallujah, and bombings. The negative journalism on these specific issues have added to the resentment and opposition. I am not saying that they should have been sugar-coated to make it look nice...because they are not. But i do believe they should be put into perspective with the rest of Iraq and balance it.

I've noticed that as the media's accounts of the war in Iraq and the war on terror get more and more similar to one another there has been an outpouring of stories from the fictional media about current events. It's as if there is no outlet for varying points of view in the newsmedia, so books, movies and video games are providing that expression. I wonder what has more of an effect on people's views, the fiction or the real stuff.

1) Do you think news outlets are giving a comprehensive portrayal of the Iraq War?
News outlets are all holed up in the Green Zone with few exceptions. When they finally got out and covered the election, there was probably the most comprehensive coverage that we've seen.

2) Do you think that we are getting a balance between "positive" news and "negative" news?

I was watching Fox News (the horror) during the early AM coverage of the Iraqi election. There was a mortar fired into the Green Zone by "insurgents." Within 20 minutes, Fox relayed that US troops had traced back the mortar fire and captured or killed those responsible, even perhaps receiving tips from the locals as to where they were. Throughout the day, I listened to the radio and heard ABC and NPR report about the mortar shelling, but neither ever mentioned the fact that the bad guys were aprehended. Nor was this mentioned in any press coverage that I've read. What kind of biased war coverage only reports one side of the casualty count? This has to be an American first. It's as if we were only losing soldiers, not killing any enemy. How would the Times report about WWII if it were happening today? Just a bunch of American dead, the only difference being the town names in the dispatch switching from Africa to Italy to France to Germany...

A more clear example. General Mattis said in a speech that it was "fun" to kill backwards Afghani men who had been abusing women for the past 5 years under the Taliban. I heard this story on NPR. The story ran on the wires, ran in the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, LA Times, etc. On the other hand, Eason Jordan (executive vice president and chief news executive of CNN), at the Davos conference, asserted that the US military had intentionally targeted members of the press for killing. Not collateral damage, but the United States military had targeted journalists for assasination. He said it in front of Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, along with members of the press, both US and international, plus a slew of world leaders. Has anyone here seen, heard or read any news coverage at all of this? Anyone?

I wonder why a general's remarks about killing terrorists being "fun" is a big news story, but a major publishers' sensational accusations of the US military killing journalists intentionally is not.

How about this underreported story?

http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/
(2nd source) http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1295734.htm



Now how about that? If someone questions the resolve of the iraqi people in these elections...go talk to the people of that town.