What War in Iraq?
June 24th, 2008 by KimCBS’ chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan appeared on “The Daily Show” last week with a few observations about broadcast coverage of Iraq becoming increasingly scarce in U.S. media, which the NYT picked up in a story on Monday.
Logan suggested that it may be hard for reporters trying to get stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on air to compete with other reports — coverage of arguably one of the most exciting presidential elections in recent history, for example. Or, as she suggested, half-jokingly, Paris Hilton getting arrested.
“You hear that people are tired of hearing about the war, so you have to go against that,” she told host Jon Stewart.
“We may be tired of hearing about this five years later,” she said. “They (the soldiers) still have to go out and do the same job.”
“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” she added. (THAT was the sound byte, of course, that got everyone going.)
YouTube edited clip here:
(Watch the full clip on ComedyCentral.com.)
Is she right? Have the American media wrongly shoved stories about Iraq and Afghanistan to the side?
The Times article cites data compiled by Andrew Tyndall that suggests coverage of Iraq by the network giants, CBS, ABC and NBC, has been “massively scaled back this year.”
Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
As in any newsroom, it’s the eternal conflict between the news that is hugely important, socially, politically, economically, and the stuff that sells, like celebrity gossip. Honestly, if I were in a different profession or if I had more time, I could probably make a killing following all the celebrities vacationing in Hawaii around with a video camera.
Even the hand-wringing about race and gender and what it all means in this presidential election — that discussion had raised some of the most interesting questions of the election at the outset, but it has become an obsession and one wonders whether that is even the real news at all.
That’s tangential to what the real issue is, anyway, that is — there are still major unresolved conflicts going on in other parts of the world which are being pushed out of people’s consciousness by empty, easy stories about frivolous stuff.
Anyway, USA TODAY picked up the story, too, and has compiled a good list of blogs that readers can turn to for more news about Iraq.
Tags: afghanistan, iraq, media
June 24th, 2008 at 6:29 am
There’s a very simple reason why the major media outlets have scaled back their coverage of Iraq: Because our incredible soldiers/military is doing an incredible job and the news is now good more often than not.
That’s not the storyline the major networks have any interest in pursuing, and they probably feel as though good news won’t draw as many viewers (although I would seriously question whether that’s really true).
For 5 years the CBS’s, CNN’s and Newsweeks have done their absolute best to undermine the American effort in Iraq and declare it a disaster unequaled in the annals of history. Now that things are improving and progress is being made, they’ve suddenly lost interest — which is a major, major disservice to our troops.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I don’t find it inappropriate that the media has chosen to devote more time to a presidential campaign that could possibly lead to America’s first Black or female (obviously, this is no longer the case with HC dropping out) president compared to a war that is now more about stabilizing a nascent democracy than vanquishing Saddam. I agree with what Timothy says above.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am
There is no doubt that our troops are doing their best as did the troops in Vietnam and history will tells us whether the American efforts in Iraq was justified although their are already strong evidence to that question. It’s a work in progress and how we end it will depend on the presidential election and that is why the media is not covering Iraq as much. Bush will have to let someone else wipe his butt.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am
i agree the media has laid off the two war zones, but i think there’s been a focus on the presidential race and some of the disasters taking place in the Midwest and California. plus, the economy seems to be on everybody’s mind, especially rising gas prices. it’s also my suspicion that during the bright, cheery summer months, good news sells more than bad news.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Perhaps the networks have nielsen ratings as a reference to use in selecting which stories will generate the most viewers which will in turn generate more revenue in advertising dollars. Is it morally acceptable or ethically responsible for the news shows to select stories based upon ad dollars? What is this world coming to when everything is weighted upon the all powerful greenback? Shouldn’t news stories and reporting not be biased based upon revenue but rather the impotance of dissemination of information in an unbiased method. I personally find it appaling when a newstory about a puppy being killed supercedes human fatalities and the true horrors of war.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The media are being controlled to a certain extent by the current administration. What can Bush and his people say publicly? That the war has been a success? In addition, yes, there are other stories that the general public is interested in hearing.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You know I am sick and tired of people complaining about this war (including the media, they have covered it enough). You have honorable men and women doing there job(which I mean by this is that they signed their life away to the government, I know). Leave national security to the experts, which hey, none of you are so lets leave it at that.
It is better that people are fighting for OUR freedom over there, than it being taken away from innocent civilians here on our home lands. Think about this, would you rather give up your own life tomorrow to save one of our men and womens lives in Iraq or Afgan? Seriously answer that question the next time YOU look in the mirror.
For those of you who oppose the war. Pay your damn taxes and let be. Enjoy your little lives that you have done nothing but given part of your paycheck and you think you earned something. Paying taxes does NOT give you the right to voice your opinion on this war. The public voted for President Bush. He is our leader. Respect that.
And if you did not vote for him. You still have no right to voice your disgrace against him. Many of you had not choice on who your employer is, but you would never talk bad about he/she in public would you?
Do me a favor, will ya? Pay your debt to society and honor our men and women at war. Just speaking out negatively about their boss is disgracing them, disgracing all of us citizens of America.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Ahhhh C…speaking poorly of the commander in chief of our military does not equate to disrespecting our troops in the field. they swore to uphold and defend our Constitution…not our President…
Yes they are fighting for our freedom…and that includes the freedom of speech…the freedom to criticize our President. We actually honor them by using our Freedom of Speech…it’s when we don’t use it…that we dishonor their sacrifices. It’s when we’re told we have to think a certain way….that disrespects their sacrifices. I have many friends and a couple of relatives in Iraq, and I feel it’s my responsiblity to speak out against a war that has seen a cousin in Iraq 3 times already.
Criticizing the President, and trying to bring an end to a war (in Iraq) that was started by using faulty intelligence, does not disrespect our troops, it honors them. I know you will probably disagree, but you know what, thats fine, and that’s YOUR freedom to choose.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:41 am
“Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
L: do i honor your cousin in iraq or you by saying i think your an idot and your stupid?
just saying “get out” is no answer to what predicament we are in. critisizing the president without any solution is no answer.
when you are in a fight, you fight to win. once you drop your guard or walk away your gonna get sucker punched. just cause you say you dont wanna fight anymore doesnt mean the other guy is gonna.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’m not sure to whom C’s post was addressed, but this statement is curious: “Paying taxes does NOT give you the right to voice your opinion on this war.”
June 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Freedom is not free. It can be taken from you at any time. Just remember that.
L writes: “speaking poorly of the commander in chief of our military does not equate to disrespecting our troops in the field. they swore to uphold and defend our Constitution…not our President…”
But anyhow, lets look at the Constitution(this taken out of the preamble):
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Highlight the phrases “provide for common defense, and promote general welfare.” Is this not what the President is doing by acting upon this war? Or is it better that we live in fear over here.
I do not speak for all on this, but having troops over there helps me sleep at night, and I mean by this, not having to worry about waking up at 3 in the morning seeing the WTC(or whatever landmark for that matter) crumble to useless rubble.
Just remember when one takes the oath to serve the military the last line reads:
“I will follow the orders of the President of the United States, and all of the officers appointed above me.”
In response to bonar: Paying taxes gives you the right to vote, not absolution to free speech. The exception such as clear and present danger clauses to restrict cases of panic. Brings to mind classic case Schenck v. United States, to make a long story short. Schenck was passing out “anti-draft” fliers during WWI and eventually spent months in prison.
Okay, so word choice might affect the extent of this rule, just remember that next time you lash out and not defend our leader.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
L: It’s hard to believe from these comments, but the majority of Americans(2/3) are with you.
“The weekend poll, timed to coincide with the Iraq war’s fifth anniversary, also showed little U.S. support for the conflict. Fewer than one in three respondents — 32 percent — said they support the war, while 66 percent said they oppose it.
Sixty-one percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq “within a few months of taking office.
Only 36 percent of those polled said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over — down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html?eref=rss_politics
June 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
In response to bonar: Paying taxes gives you the right to vote, not absolution to free speech. The exception such as clear and present danger clauses to restrict cases of panic. Brings to mind classic case Schenck v. United States, to make a long story short. Schenck was passing out “anti-draft” fliers during WWI and eventually spent months in prison.
C: The right to free speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That’s what I didn’t understand about your statement. And, by the way, the Constitution does not require me to “defend” anyone, even the President.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:59 am
The Constitution does not guarantee free speech. Charles Scheneck used that in his defense in his case and the Supreme Court voted unanimously against him. There are exceptions to the first amendment, such as clear and present danger. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater because it would cause panic.
In Scheneck’s case you cannot say “false” statements about he US government or the President because it may cause panic, that is where this country is headed. Maybe someone should have done something by now.
And no the Constitution doesn’t require you to defend anyone, it simply says that the people elected by the people should uphold common defense.
Apples and oranges my friend.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
C said: “In Scheneck’s case you cannot say “false” statements about he US government or the President because it may cause panic, that is where this country is headed. Maybe someone should have done something by now.”
C: You’re overgeneralizing the meaning of that case and limitations on free speech. The Constitution DOES guarantee free speech. It is the judicial system that interprets the first amendment.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Kim,
I think the war in Iraq has been kept off the “front pages” for a while because the official media have restricted the spectrum of “responsible opinion” to that of the Democrats and the Republicans, and neither of the major parties can find anything useful or believable to say about the war. Obama has staked out a position sufficient to appeal to those upset with the war, while leaving his options open for the future. McCain has the support of those who don’t want “to lose” the war, but has a hard time explaining how he will do anything other than “stay the course.” Neither side has much incentive to raise the profile of the issue.
At one time, there was talk of establishing “benchmarks” or “metrics” for evaluating the “progress” of the war. All that talk has been abandoned and the benchmarks are in tatters. “The US will stand down as the Iraqis stand up.” Forgotten! All the training of the Iraq forces to “assume the burden” has been unsuccessful. The leaders of the US-sponsored are increasingly turning against the US and towards Iran. The US has bribed Sunni tribal leaders to not attack US forces, which is a kind of progress, I guess, but the Sunnis are just waiting out the US forces, as are the Shia.
Meanwhile, the Bush gang, about to be driven from office, is trying to lockdown the Iraqi oil for their cronies and impose permanent military bases and military occupation upon the Iraqis before Obama is elected president. All of which is newsworthy in the major media of every other country, except in the US.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Mr C.: I hope you will re-consider your thinking on this. The war on Iraq does NOT “provide for the common defense.” And, despite Mr. Bush’s pre-occupation with his fancy title of “Commander-in-Chief” (aka “Generalissimo”), the Constitution reserves the authority to declare war to the Congress, NOT the President. If you rise above the distorting effects of jingoistic rhetoric and reflect upon the glorious wisdoms contained in the US Constitution, you should also be critical of Mr. Bush’s usurptions of kingly authority.
In trying to sell the war, Mr. Bush & posse resorted to an evershifting repertoire of propagandistic talking points, half-truths and lies. They claimed we were attacked because “they hate us for our freedoms.” Which “freedoms” in particular? Well, in Bush’s mind, that apparently meant the “freedom to shop,” because that was the duty he called upon us to undertake, “or the terrorists will win.” He most clearly did NOT mean we should exercise our freedom of speech or our constitutional right to be free from unwarranted search of our private effects and communications. Or our thousand year old right to habeas corpus.
Now you are telling us we do not have the right, in time of war, to criticize the president. I am sympathetic to the stresses faced by our troops as they are forced overseas to fight this stupid war. How to make sense of it? Well, convincing yourself that this is a fight for “freedom” or the “American Way of Life,” or that “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” might make the job easier to handle. But it is convoluted B.S.. And it does not strengthen our democracy to demand our public discourse about the war remain within the confines of thoughts that make the troops comfortable or do not undermine confidence in “the commander-in-chief.”
Our democracy is strong than that. Or, it would be, if we exercised our brains a bit more and took the responsibilities of active citizenship more seriously.
Mr. C.: I think if you reflect a bit more on the implications of your remarks, you will find that you have been deprecating freedom rather than promoting it. When patriots do this, the terrorists win.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Are the American people getting the fullest and clearest picture of the way American wealth and treasured lives are committed abroad?
Is it by mere chance that a campaign is pursued to deny the American viewers get the two sides of the story that doesn’t usually make it on US media some of whom either co-opted by corporations and/or corruption?
It seems that the right of US viewers’ majority to have alternate news channels is being objected to by a handful but noisy few. Interestingly, many of such vocal elements possess no expertise either about the society in the Middle East its media, or the Arabic discourse on issues existing there.
One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital concern for American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions. Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.
Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries.Armed with diverse news sources, the American people can crosscheck and verify the government’s position to rid themselves of half-truths from the corporate media, which remains a willing accomplice in keeping American viewers continually subjected to what former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls “Washington’s Culture of Deception.”
If all is well (as some wish to portray) then how come US is going to face such high cost and its even higher consequences as the following example suggests:
A recent example best illustrates of what the American viewers miss out if their right to have alternate sources of information are continued to be denied. One wonders how many viewers in USA watched “Daylight Robbery” aired on BBC One on 10 June 2008?
This episode in the Panorama serial investigates claims that as much as $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The programme had many revealing references on the fact when the US goes to war, corporate America goes too. “There are contracts for caterers, tanker drivers, security guards and even interrogators, many of them through companies with links to the White House.”
“Now more than 70 whistleblower cases threaten to reveal the scandals behind billions of dollars worth of waste, theft and corruption during the Iraq war.”
“A total of $23bn (£11.75bn) is under scrutiny. The US justice department has imposed gagging orders which prevent the real scale of the problem emerging.”
Had American tax payers an easy access to alternate information sources such as Al Jazeera it wouldn’t have taken them several long years to question the wisdom of the “cakewalk” bunch i.e. the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”
Thus encouraging and embracing alternate sources of media has become increasingly important at a time when many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of overstepping their boundaries. An Italian scholar of the Arab media, Donatella della Ratta rightly suggests that the West should seriously consider before blaming or blocking channels like Aljazeera that are in fact educating tools to inform rather than a medium providing an embedded version from a warring side.
By denying the option for diversity, those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of an accountable media that is injurious to American interest.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Thanks !