Iraq news coverage

Great Debates
1

One of the complaints I’ve heard from right wing commentators is that the news coverage of the Iraqi war is part of what’s hurting our war efforts. One of the opinions I’ve heard made is that there might not have been as much support for W.W.II if the news media of the time was constantly reporting casualties like they do today.

What’s your opinion on that? Actually, because of the political leaning of this board, and all of the antiwar posts, I pretty much already know the standard response will basically be “Bullshit!” But I’d like a little bit more elaboration please.

As for me, I have no idea, but I guess I’m leaning towards letting the media off of the hook.
For one thing, opinion going into a war will help determine how hard casualties will affect us. I mean, if we feel it’s a just war, then we’ll be sad about the casualties, but see them as necessary, whereas if we’re against it from the start, then they’re totally unnecessary and each death just proves how wrong we were to go to war. Although I could be wrong, I’m pretty sure that most Americans we behind the war effort, whereas for the current Iraqi war, the country was more 50%/50%, wasn’t it? So you already have a large percentage of the population against it from the start. Not the media’s fault.
Another thing, although we didn’t have the 24 hour media that we do now, ready to provide instant updates the moment we, or our allies, suffered more casualties, I have to believe that there were casualties reported, and that the American people knew that their soldiers were dying. Of course, seeing how much propaganda there was, like having comics and cartoons portray the Japanese as having buckteeth, and other things designed to dehumanize the enemy in our mind, I suppose the media could have tried to sugar coat the situation, or not report on massive death counts, but I don’t know that, I wasn’t there and I haven’t’ read any archived news articles or news reels from the time. So, what I guess I’m trying to get at here is, I don’t have a comparison about news reporting from W.W.II vs now, so I really don’t feel qualified to answer my own OP.

But anyway, what’s your opinion?

2

The US involvment is Iraq is evil. The leader of the US is evil. Next question?

3

Did they not report casulties in WWII? Seems like I’ve heard that during WWII most papers would publish lists of names of all US casulties for that week. I’ve only seen one US paper that does this for Iraq (St Pete Times). Any oldtimers old enough to remember if there is indeed a difference?

4

Ahhhh, just the kind calm, rantional discussion I was looking for where you give your opinion on the OP, and then state the reason behind it. Thank you so much for your valuable and insightful input.

5

That’s something I mentioned in the OP as well. I, myself, have no clue as to the level of casualty reporting that was done for that war and am curious about it myself.

6

I think this is a crucial point. Cost is always relative to what is being purchased.

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor ( for some reason I couldn’t resist ) it was apparent that the item purchased was really worth having.

But re Iraq, there’re so many “real reasons” why we’re over there that many folks aren’t clear about what exactly we’re supposed to be buying with our dead and wounded.

7

I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is the major bitch the right wing (or more accurately the pro-war crowd) have against the media…i.e. they aren’t bitching about the news coverage reporting the number of casualties. Their bitch is that the news coverage seems to focus on the negative aspects and not the positive aspects of the war…i.e. its not balanced but its skewed to paint the war in the worst possible light without attempting to show both sides of the story. They focus on the number of casualties or the numbers of attacks while not focusing on whatever positive aspects the pro-war folks figure are important to be reported. To a certain extent they have a point…but its a point that ignores the way the news organs in the US work and how the news is reported by them to the population.

As far as war reporting during WWII it was highly censored…and as you pointed out propaganda was rampant. There were LOTS of events that were never reported by the press in the US and aren’t even general knowledge. There were major fuckups during the D-Day practices IIRC that cost hundreds of US lives. There were incidents of US troops shooting prisoners, robbing and stealing, and generally behaving as badly as any other troops on the other side (well, probably not considering what the SS and Japanese medical corps did, but still nothing to be proud of). The US population wasn’t clued in to just how bad carpet bombing was on enemy cities and enemy civilians. Things like the Indianapolis were swept under the rug IIRC. So, its not really comparable. If something like Abu Ghraib, for instance, had happened during WWII (and at a guess I’d say the odds are good something similar DID happen) it would have been swept under the rug or just ignored.

-XT

8

Related thread:
Oral Commandos to Baghdad

9

I see their gripe, but its just standard news reporting. For instance, local news does not report on all the people that **weren’t ** killed last night, just the ones that were.

WWII was about survival. Iraq was an elective war, so they’ve (Bush & Co.) gotta be prepared to take the lumps when bad stuff happens. Becuase in the end, they are to blame.

10

I’m not terribly familiar with news coverage on WWII, but as others have pointed out, there are reasons why such a comparison is hard to draw meaningful conclusions from, so I won’t try.

In the last 3 days I have spoken to two friends living in rural america, One from Michigan, one from West Virginia. Both of them reported essentially the same thing, that the local news coverage was so overwhelmingly pro-war that even folks whose politics would normally drive them away from supporting the war had little reason to oppose it. They had to actively go looking for a dissenting voice that would report on some of the uglier sides of the war.

11

It seems to me that the coverage of this war has changed thanks to unrealistic expectations. During the “shock and awe” early stages, I recall very little dissenting opinions in the news coverage. Really, right up until “Mission Accomplished” I rarely remember hearing much that might have been considered grossly anti-war.

But what is the media supposed to be covering now? They were told there would be weapons of mass destruction, they were told there would be welcoming celebrations in the street, they were told the human rights abusers were the other guys…etc.

Didn’t the administration set itself up for this kind of coverage? Are they not lucky news coverage is not a great deal less favorable?

12

Interesting piece of info… that certainly seems like skewed news…

WWII was certainly heavily censored in many ways. Iraq still has a lot of censoring and some of it self imposed by the media. No dead GIs photos and stuff like that. Most outsiders including myself think the US media most of the time was overly pro-Bush and pro-Iraq. (Despite our bias against Bush it was clear that the Media was going very easy on Bush and the reasons for the war.) That changed more recently with the WMD discredited and the NYT apology.

**We could analyze the media coverage by analyzing what would be happening de facto in Iraq if the media were heavily pro-Iraq.  If every bit of news were positive what would that change in Iraq ?**

  • Bush wouldn’t be talking about withdrawls and pull backs. Insurgents wouldn’t have a chance of provoking a pull out ? Certainly insurgent tactics and objectives would be different.

  • Human Rights and Prisons wouldn’t be an issue. Would this give the military way to much leave to torture and muck things up ? This would certainly alienate Iraqis.

  • Recruitment would be better… since most wanna be recruits wouldn’t have a real picture of the great patriotic war. More troops could also be sent in since it wouldn’t be a political problem.

  • In the US the republican party probably would establish a defacto hold on power ? Therefore make Iraq extendable and politically profitable.

(This sounds all awfully familiar… like Vietnam… hehe )

13

Actually, that is a better representation of the complaint than what I gave. Thanks.

14

Sun Tzu says, “No country has ever profited from protracted warfare. Those who do not thoroughly comprehend the dangers inherent in employing the army are incapable of truly knowing the potential advantages of military action.” (p.173; The Art of War; Westview) Now that sounds like an idea this administration can hang its hat on.

15

Both sides over-react extremely on this issue, especially since it’s so subjective. Furthermore, diction used in reports can often mean different things to different people and can always be used to further political causes.

I am of the belief that the media, in general, reports negative to positive news in Iraq at a ratio of something like 7:3 or 6:4. Of course, it’s no coincidence considering bad news generally sells more papers/brings more viewers/etc. and the media **is ** a business.

If given the choice between reading “14 US Marines die in Fallujah” or “14 Marines give candy to schoolchildren in Fallujah” I believe that most people would find the former far more interesting and would be more inclined to pay attention to it. The latter makes a nice ‘feel-good’ piece every few days, but the former is has far more effect on us here at home.

The good things do go reported, it’s just that they’re usually buried behind the bad things because the bad things draw ratings. Furthermore, I think you could argue it’s always been this way.

If you order a documentary on WW2, how much of that documentary is post-war reconstruction and how much will be guns, bombs, and death? It will usually cover the Marshall plan and whatnot, but the battles and the military action are the bulk of it. For instance, just today the History Channel boardcast 4 or 5 parts (can’t remember number) of it’s The Color of War series about WW2. Out of that, only ONE part was about post-war reconstruction. About the good news, about the feel good stuff.

To understand that the media is a business, and that they’ll bush what ‘sells’ is to understand war coverage. If people, as a majority, wanted footage of Marines building schools and giving children candy, then that’s what the media would give them. Business is business, and it makes absolutely no sense for a business to sacrifice money to try and push some sort of percieved agenda.

Although if you’re talking op-ed shows, there can be a legitimate point made.

16

If those right wing commentators had good solid big reasons for this war they’d not be worrying about nuances they don’t like.

There was support for WWII because two very powerful fascist megalomaniac nations had declared war on the world. Not war as in spin doctor war (war on drugs, war on terrorism). Actual “fight back or we will destroy your military capability and invade your nation bodily” war. No doubt there was understating of casualties but even without that, people would have seen good reason for war.

There is at best tenuous support for the Iraq war because the reasons for fighting it are tenuous at best.

When a business reaches the stage where the owner is worried about the amount spent on pencils, you know that the real problem isn’t the money being spent on pencils.

17

Very well spoken…

18

The reporters in Iraq can only report what they see, and that’s limited to the Green Zone. They can’t go anywhere else because they’ll get killed, and even there it isn’t safe. They can’t report all those hypothetical “positive aspects” because they don’t know of any. All the information they have is about the latest attacks and the latest update to the body count. The picture they report is, essentially, reality.

So what should they do instead?

19

Uhm you do realise that that too is propaganda, right?

“two very powerful fascist megalomaniac nations had declared war on the world.”

That’s an accurate description of the sitiuation? No hyperbole?

“Actual “fight back or we will destroy your military capability and invade your nation bodily” war.”

You really believe Hitler or Japan would have invaded the US??

20

Well considering Hitler had plans for it and Japan went as to bomb the US, I think that’s a pretty good bet. Although it’s debatable being that it never did happen.