I am a news junkie. I read the local newspaper, I check the online versions of Newsweek and Time every Sunday afternoon to get the latest in-depth stories as soon as they’re released, I check CNN.com a dozen times a day.
I see plenty of stories about the latest bomb to explode in Iraq, or announcing the death of the latest American soldier, or the latest non-event in the search for WMDs. But damn if I ever see anything about what it’s like to be on the ground and outside “the bubble” in Iraq.
This morning, for the first time in a long time, one of those stories actually appeared. It’s by a guy named Tod Robberson, a writer for The Dallas Morning News. Registration is required, but it’s a pretty good newspaper, and they do not spam you.
Some things you’ve undoubtedly heard about before (if you’ve been paying close attention, which most people haven’t), like the sorry electricity supply, the gas shortages, and the ethnic/religious tensions. But in the ordinary course of reporting, those facts are rarely mentioned other than in passing, like they’re theories best described in the abstract. “Sunnis are afraid of the Shiites. Everyone hates the Kurds. Britney’s annuled wedding at 11.”
Thank god for Mr. Robberson, who had quite a bit of interest to say about the situation in Iraq. A few quotes:
Sounds like a recipe for success, yes?
Seriously, though, can someone explain to me why such reports are so rare? Has the press turned into nothing more than a conduit for soundbytes, a cowed and beaten coward? Why the heck is it so darned rare to see such reporting about the situation on the ground?
I don’t watch much network news, so I couldn’t tell you much of what they are reporting. The 3 major cable news channels have done blurbs on what life is like for Iraqis in recent weeks.
Reports like this are rare because it isn’t gaudy enough to attract attention. For most of the viewing public, flashy carnage is what sells. When most don’t care what goes on in their own neighblrhood, why would we expect they to worry about another country?
I can’t see any other way to assess the US media coverage other than on a country to country comparison, so it opens up the whole debate to numbskull nationalism or similar . . . hey ho.
Fwiw, I think an interesting starting place to consider the US-based coverage of all things Iraq is Murdoch. In the US he runs Fox, in the UK Sky. I don’t see either but I am often told Sky isn’t very different to the BBC. I’ve not heard many good things about Fox. Why the difference between Fox and Sky ?
Well, perhaps it’s not surprising given that they are legally obligated – though through different legal routes – to present fair and unbiased news coverage. The BBC Charter requires more of that Org than does the Regulations governing private broadcasters but both methods are overseen and reviewed rigorously. This would seem to exclude even the potential for so-called ‘Infotainment’. Strangled at birth.
Afaik, there are no obligation to do anything in the US save serve the corporate/capitalist agenda of owners and to not lose too much money.
Then there is the issue of diversity, or, as you term it, outside the “bubble”. I don’t know why the situation is as you describe it. It certainly isn’t reflected here, in electronic media or print – the print media here is especially good on the wider issues concerning Iraq.
My best guess would be that the regulatory framework is flawed (if there is one at all); I’d hazard that US media companies don’t compete on the quality of what they offer, but on what people want to hear. This would seem to be the definition of ‘dumbing down’ expectations of News and Current Affairs.
What’s interesting is that I often hear Americans complaining of the coverage, so very many are aspiring to better quality. I take this as confirmation that the public do aspire to quality and my description of the UK market mechanism is not rose-tinted wishful thinking. People genuinely seem to desire quality.
Sorry, I’m of the opinion that there ARE no unbiased sources. I’ll read the Guardian, but also the Independant, and watch CNN, but also Fox, read Instapundit but also Josh Marshall, etc.
LC:
So, let’s get this straight. You never watch Fox, but are sure it’s biased because you’ve heard rumors that it is. And you offer us a reason for why it is biased (even though you don’t watch it). Wow, that’s impressive!
Give it up, minty. This one seems to be turning into the pissing match that every other attempt at a balanced look at the war and its aftermath turns into.
Now that CNN’s buddy Saddam is gone, there are actual upstart news agencies that do something other than kiss Saddam’s ass 24-7. Sometimes it’s an improvment.
Usama has made it clear that his battleground is Iraq, as predicted. So, what should we expect? All things considered, the foreign policy situation is far brighter than it was during the 1990s and early 2000s – just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Terrorism continues… That’s news now because Bush can be blamed. Meanwhile, back in 1993, the first WTC was treated as an ordinary street crime. Clinton missed his golden opportunity to create a real foreign policy legacy for himself. He was far more intellectually capable – but most importantly was perceived as sitting on another side of the invisible political fence. Therefore, Clinton could have taken out Saddam in 1998 without much in the way of international consternation, well, compared to what Bush gets anyway.
I won’t downplay it. Clinton would have had the extreme right carping (some things never change – substitute Bush for Clinton or left for right). Moreover, the hate-America left throughout the world wants us dead. It’s not a question of just kissing the right ass. Similarly, the Islamists are perhaps more dangerous.
As always it comes down to: your solution is? I know, discuss things with Chiraq and Evilpain.
As noted in my first post in this thread, it is possible to find some interesting reports pretty easily on the web. But I do agree with you in that I wish the major news outlets (papers, cable) would give periodic (monthly?) updates on how things stand. Sort of like what any company would do for a major project like this: regular Operations Reviews comparing progress in the major areas (security, employment, utilities, oil production, etc.) against the goals that were set. In fact, I’ve never even seen anything outlining what the goals are, other than very broad, high level goals like having the Interim Gov’t running things by this coming summer.
The number of such reports must be exactly equal to the number of journalists willing to do real investigative reporting and being able to secure the support of their publications in doing so. I’ve read a few other good reports on real life in Iraq, tainted both right and left. Strictly speaking, whether such reports are “darned rare” or “overdone” is a matter of opinion.
The reason there are so few first-hand reports from Iraq in the mainstream press is because the press does a really lousy job of covering things like this.
Most foreign press coverage consists of a bunch of reporters flocking to the nicest hotel in the biggest city, venturing out a few blocks if at all, interviewing a couple of people, and then hanging out in the bar. Because of this, the press is an easy target for manipulation. I used to bitch about this stuff in the old Soviet Union days - reporters who go to the Soviet Union, get shown a Potemkin Village, get a tour of the opera house or a stadium, and be ‘allowed’ to interview people who were either stooges or ordinary citizens painfully aware that the nice American was standing with a KGB agent.
How much first-hand reporting did you hear coming out of Rwanda? Or any number of troubled places?
There are still good reports coming from places like this, but almost all of them from independent journalists and writers like Mark Steyn, P.J. O’Rourke, Thomas Friedman, etc. Most of these people have some sort of agenda, so you have to read carefully.
My suggestion would be to go right to the source. Read those Iraqi blogs, and follow the links to other Iraq resources. There are a number of Iraq newspapers on the web now that you can read. There are also some good Iranian, Kuwaiti, and other middle-eastern journals and newspapers that have good info in them, but you have to remember to filter their biases out.
For those interested, there is a Frontline show scheduled for February 12th in which the reporter specifically set out to report on Iraq “outside of Baghdad”.