Associated Press: Police Blotter Reporting?
Newspaper editors and the Associated Press have begun to reassess the AP’s reporting in Iraq.
The NY Times reports:
Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.
“Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?” the anonymous polemic asks, in part. “Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?”
“Of course we didn’t know!” the message concludes. “Our media doesn’t tell us!”
Ms. Goudreau’s newspaper, like most dailies in America, relies largely on The Associated Press for its coverage of the Iraq war. So she finally forwarded the e-mail message to Mike Silverman, managing editor of The A.P., asking if there was a way to check these assertions and to put them into context. Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had also received a copy of the message.
Ms. Goudreau’s query prompted an unusual discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose newspapers are members of The Associated Press. Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture beyond the daily death tolls.
“The bottom-line question was, people wanted to know if we’re making progress in Iraq,” Ms. Goudreau said, and the A.P. articles were not helping to answer that question…
Here’s teh conclusion:
Mr. Silverman also said the wire service would make more effort to flag articles that look beyond the breaking news. As it turned out, he said, most of the information in the anonymous e-mail message had been reported by The A.P., but the details had been buried in articles or the articles had been overlooked.
Before the meeting, The A.P. collected three articles by reporters for other news organizations who were embedded with American troops and sent them out over the wire to provide “more voice.” Mr. Silverman said he wanted to do more of that but the opportunities were limited because there are only three dozen embedded journalists now, compared with 700 when the war began more than two years ago.
Ms. Goudreau, for one, found the discussion useful. By the end, she said, editors were acknowledging that even in their own hometowns, “we’re more likely to focus on people who are killed than on the positive news out of a school.”
I think few of us would disagree. If it bleeds it leads. Shocks sells. In war perhaps shock is oversold.
Read the entire article. The Tampa Tribune is CENTCOM’s hometown newspaper (and it also carries my Creators Syndicate column).
I wrote a column in March 2005 that considered the question of unbalanced coverage.
Here’s what I saw in Iraq:
It was a very early morning in July 2004, and after making myself a steamer-sized cup of hot tea at my desk in Corps Plans, I walked into the coalition military’s Joint Operations Center (JOC) in Al Faw Palace, Baghdad.
Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had left Baghdad a couple of weeks earlier, and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s interim Iraqi government was –as the bad pun went — an interim rocky government. But Allawi’s government not only had popular support, it had spine. Day by day, Allawi emerged as a smart, adaptive and courageous leader. The Allawi government was rapidly building a democratic Iraqi future.
I took a seat in the back of the JOC’s eight-tiered ampitheater. A huge plasma screen draped the JOC’s front wall, like a movie theater screen divided into ceiling-high panels capable of displaying multiple computer projections. A viewer could visually hopscotch from news to weather to war. In the upper right-hand corner of one panel, Fox News flickered silently — and for the record, occasionally CNN or Al Jazeera would flicker there, as well. Beneath Fox ran my favorite channel, live imagery from a Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle circling somewhere over Iraq.
The biggest display, that morning and every morning, was a spooling date-time list describing scores of military and police actions undertaken over the last dozen hours, The succinct, acronym-packed reports flowed like haikus of violence: “0331: 1/5 Cav, 1st Cavalry Division, arrests suspects after Iraqi police stop car”; “0335 USMC vicinity Fallujah engaged by RPG, returned fire. No casualties.”
The spool spun on and on, and I remember thinking: “I know we’re winning. We’re winning because — in the big picture — all the opposition (Saddam’s thugs and Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda) has to offer is the tyranny of the past. But the drop-by-drop police blotter perspective obscures that.”
Collect relatively isolated events in a chronological list and presto: the impression of uninterrupted, widespread violence destroying Iraq. But that was a false impression. Every day, coalition forces were moving thousands of 18-wheelers from Kuwait and Turkey into Iraq, and if the “insurgents” were lucky they blew up one. However, flash the flames of that one rig on CNN and, “Oh my God, America can’t stop these guys,” is the impression left in Boise and Beijing.
“Mr. Silverman said he wanted to do more of that but the opportunities were limited because there are only three dozen embedded journalists now, compared with 700 when the war began more than two years ago.” … and yet, every fortnight (that’s two weeks for us in the US of A) Arthur Chrenkoff at http://www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com/ has been posting the good news for the past two years. There is more in one of Arthur’s posts than could be printed in any paper in two weeks. Or check out Michael Yon at http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/ or the posts of our host, the ever-interesting Austin Bay. These are just the people I read; there are many others. But Mr. Silverman can’t find anything? He doesn’t look.
Comment by Dave — 8/15/2005 @ 5:53 pm
I agree with Dave that it’s specious of Mr. Silverman to claim that he doesn’t have the manpower (personpower?) to cover the good news. Chrenkoff is a case in point. I would imagine that this mysterious e-mail the papers keep getting is something that was started by people who read blogs, and who read Chrenkoff in particular. I can’t quite imagine that this sort of campaign could have gotten going in the pre-internet, pre-blog era. It’s all to the good if it helps make the newspapers more evenhanded in their coverage. To paraphrase, “The whole web is watching.”
Comment by neo-neocon — 8/15/2005 @ 10:31 pm
All I know about Iraq is what I get from the media. This is a litany of bombings, murders and other problems. We see the same pictures of black smoke billowing from beyond buildings, burnt-out car hulks and craters. They could be the same pictures being recycled there is so much sameness about them. I haven’t really found any place that tells me about progress on infrastucture and economics. I guess that is dull reporting and we don’t have a need to know.
Comment by Bob — 8/15/2005 @ 10:51 pm
Subj: Can we help Jack Kelly get to Iraq? Date: 8/15/05 3:42:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Greerwynn To: malkin@comcast.net, gatesofvienna@chromatism.net, THEANCHORESS@GMAIL.COM, thecorner@nationalreview.com, wincap10@yahoo.com Today I read a post by Jack Kelly at “Irish Pennants” I posted a comment to Kelly’s blog and then sent out the first email to several blogs for feedback. Then saw Powerline’s link to the Townhall column by Ham, regarding the attacks by the MSM on the editor Yost, a navy vet, endured for asking for a balanced coverage of the war in Iraq. My subsequent comment and emails are included. Am I in the a reality zone or not here? Dear Blogs, Check Jack’s post at “Irish Pennants” today. I have posted a comment on the site. Any possibilities here? Thanks for consideration of this matter. Regards, Larwyn Click here: Irish Pennants: Thinking about balanced coverage? “Congress and the Pentagon could make it easier for regional newspapers to send embeds by permitting journalists who are embedded with U.S. units to buy Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance. My paper has balked at sending me back to Iraq because of the high price of hazard insurance. If we could buy insurance at the same rate as the GIs do, more of us would go.” Posted by jkelly at 09:20 AM Comments Dear Jack, Sure there are many of your fans that would love to have your take on Iraq from the actual country. Please give us the links or email addresses for the congressional members that would have some clout on this issue. I assume Armed Services but may be specific sub-coms. Also, who can actually help at the Pentagon? State? Karen Hughes? Sadly, I feel some responsibility for the newspapers’ lack of funds. Could no longer stand the Post Gazette and canceled all but Sunday edition. So, in lieu of that, I would be willing to make a contribution to a fund for the insurance necessary. Knowing how slow Congress moves this could be solution. Let us know your thoughts on this and give us the links/email addresses to spur the politicos on. Best Regards, Larwyn Posted by: larwyn at August 15, 2005 03:25 PM I just get so frustrated with news by the MSM regarding Iraq. I keep Sir Winston’s “In war truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” in mind. That we are allowing their memes to continue, practically unchallenged for reasons. This would be continuing the “flypaper” strategy, which I hardily endorse. Just think how the intentions of Iran, Hezbolla, Syria, and even Hamas are daily thrown in the faces of all the multicultural appeasers out there. I do not think a movie like “The Fog of War” will ever be made by Sec. Rumsfeld. The only other point here is that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a Lefty paper, I don’t know the others that syndicate Jack Kelly’s column, but if same publisher, good bet they are the same. So they would have more than financial reasons to not want to send this former Marine and Green Beret to Iraq. They really would not like his reports. And if he would go and write positive stories about our military and about our progress, perhaps the Pentagon doesn’t want that either. All the bad also informs the Iraqis to be afraid of the possibility of our pulling out. So looking at just the small issue of Jack Kelly going to Iraq presents lots of questions and possibilities. God Bless you, Larwyn Subj: Powerline links to a Yost story - connect the dots to Kelly? Date: 8/15/05 11:03:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time Powerline had the link to this story that begins with a local paper editor, a Navy vet criticizing his paper’s coverage of Iraq. Ham nicely summarizes the reactions from the MSM. Read it and then think about Jack’s posting regarding “costs of insurance”. Does any visitor to this site think that is only reasons powers that be would not want to send Jack Kelly to Iraq? Having served in both the Marines and the Green Berets must be an automatic disqualification if you haven’t called Pres. Bush an S.O.B. Read it and connect the dots. Regards, Larwyn Click here: Mary Katharine Ham: Yost, a Navy veteran himself, was getting a jarringly different picture of the war from friend http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ham20050815.shtml Thinking about balanced coverage? http://www.irishpennants.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/342 Am I out of line with thoughts on this? Sir Winston Churchill’s wit and guidance has been a touchstone since I was a girl, and admit that Smiley also has had influence with balance by Cornelius Ryan. So advise,
Comment by larwyn — 8/16/2005 @ 1:36 am
I noticed this item in the NYT also and it started me thinking about cause and effect. From a post I made at RedState.Org: “…The one thing the press hadn’t counted on was the large number of “citizen soldiers” involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the regular troops rotate home they tend to be concentrated at major military bases and don’t mingle with the US population as a whole. But the large number of Reserve and National Guard units deployed means that when they go home they are among the local population; they are in every town in America; they are in offices and schools and factories everywhere; just about everyone has run into someone recently back from Iraq or Afghanistan. The result is that the “real” story, the soldiers’ story of the “other side” of the war begins to get out among the populace. And local people begin to question their local newspapers — resulting in local newspapers questioning AP. “
Comment by John Steele — 8/16/2005 @ 10:21 am
It’s not just the good news that gets buried. The Weekly Standard has done superb investigative reporting on the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, but it’s not getting out there.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 8/16/2005 @ 11:23 am
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rboyd_20050816.html August 16, 2005 While Editors Ponder… Robin Mullins Boyd The New York Times ran an article on August 15, 2005 that was an eye opening discourse into the soul of the print media. The article, “Editors Ponder how to Present a Broad Picture of Iraqâ€, was spurred by an anonymous email that has been making the rounds since January 2005. The email was basically a list of many of the accomplishments that had taken place in post Saddam Iraq. A number of editors of major newspapers, all Associated Press members, had concerns that they where “not telling the whole story†about Iraq. Mike Silverman, managing editor of the Associated Press, lamented the fact that “explosions and shootings and fatalities and injuries on some days seem to dominate the news.†Silverman cited the dangers in Iraq as one of the reasons reporters were not getting more of the good things. Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s Executive Editor, actually said that “it was much easier to add up the number of dead than to determine how many hospitals received power on a particular day or how many schools were built.†Silverman than threw out the typical media excuse – the positives listed in the email were actually in various AP stories but they were buried in the articles. Well here’s a news flash for the editors cited in the article. The email that started the ball rolling was actually excerpts from an article published on the Internet on January 30, 2005. The article, “Accentuating the Negativeâ€, was published on OpinionEditorials.com. How did I get all of this information about the original article? Easy – I wrote it. Yes, the major print media was thrown into fits of “healthy discussion†by a woman who lives in Guyton, GA. A southern belle, wife, mother and grandmother that works full time as a Registered Nurse. A writer that has no degree in journalism but writes op-ed pieces for free (but would not mind getting paid). A woman who loves to write and has book number 2 in production with a publisher. I am just someone that seeks out the facts and doesn’t rely on what someone tells me. Someone that can form an opinion all by their little self. I put my critical thinking skills developed through years of nursing to work. Believe it or not, a dreaded “FReeper†and member of the Pajamahadeen knows more about the situation in Iraq than all of the high paid, high powered editors that rule what we read every day. I have no connections, no anonymous sources. Ramsey Clark did not have to set up interviews for me. I do not have an account at Kinko’s or access to forged memo templates. No one got “outed†in my attempt to uncover the truth. Lives were not placed in jeopardy. Not one single animal was harmed in my quest for information. No one was forced to wear panties on their head or participate in naked pyramids. Heck, I didn’t even have to give money to “the other side†in Fallujah to get the low-down. In an ironic twist, a follow-up article, “Ignoring the Positive”, was published on opinioneditorials.com the very same day. I did not have to be stationed in Baghdad or embedded with troops in Fallujah to get my information. No one was firing RPG’s at me. The only injury I sustained was a paper cut while printing out my rough draft of the article. The information for both articles came the War on Terror section of the Department of Defense website - information that anyone with Internet access can get any time of the day. Guess that blows Mr. Silverman’s excuse out of the water. Am I surprised that the print media executives were clueless about the reconstruction facts in Iraq? Not hardly. Was the information more difficult to obtain than tallying up the dead and injured in Iraq? Uh, no. Any one with any amount of common sense knows the truth. Things are not all peaches and cream in Iraq but they certainly are not all black as the media would have us believe. So the next time one of the media pundits laments the difficulty obtaining positive information from Iraq, consider the source. The only difficulty the media has is setting aside their hatred of President Bush long enough to do their job. And they wonder why the newspaper circulation numbers are down across the board? Guess it’s easier to tally up the numbers than find out the truth.
Comment by Robin Mullins Boyd — 8/16/2005 @ 11:29 am
[…] t. Austin Bay is looking at how the AP’s rather negatively slanted Iraq coverage is being re-evaluated, which is news I am grateful to hear. Jack Kelly seems to have something of a companion piec […]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Coupla interesting pieces on Journalism — 8/16/2005 @ 12:48 pm
The media reports only bad news from Iraq, and it also refuses to put anything in context or give it a historical perspective. If you think that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq and we’re not being aggressive enough, you need to study the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962). The French sent half a million troops to Algeria, a country that had a population of only 9 million at the time, compared to present-day Iraq’s 25 million. The French military was also given orders by Paris to crush the Muslim insurgency by any means necessary. Primarily, the French used the principle of “collective responsibilityâ€: If a village harbored or supported the FLN guerillas, it was bombed from the air, hit with artillery, or assaulted by infantry and burned. The French also put millions of Algerians in concentration camps, tortured prisoners to death, and instituted a policy of mass summary execution. What was the end result of this counterinsurgency waged without any restrictions? The French lost 18,000 soldiers dead and 65,000 wounded. About 3000 French civilians were killed, and between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians died. The French fought the Algerians with everything they had, and they still lost the war. Their brutality actually inspired people to oppose them. The Coalition is doing the right thing in Iraq by not bringing in a huge number of ground troops and flattening everything in sight. Our combat death rate is less than a third of what the French suffered, and civilian deaths are only a fraction. It’s time for jounralists, pundits, and paid analysts to stop criticizing the war effort in Iraq. The historically low casualties we’ve suffered in the short term will prevent much greater casualties over the long term. Nay sayers must put aside their personal animosity for Donald Rumsfeld and recognize that his policies have helped prevent Iraq from becoming the blood-soaked killing ground that Algeria was. For more info on the Algerian War of Independence, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_of_Independence
Comment by Tom W. — 8/16/2005 @ 1:07 pm
The SGLI eligibility for the press is a really good idea, Jack. However, I believe that that policy is authorised by legislation, and so you’d need a legislative fix to permit reporters to be eligible. That’s not an insurmountable problem, IMHO. Just requires a different set of levers to be pulled. As far as AP goes — if they were committed to honest reporting they would not have their stringers and TV crew actually participating in attacks, as has happened at least four times that I know of, starting with the mutilation of the contractors in Fallujah (an AP TV crew, which was alerted in advance to the terrorist ambush, encouraged the mob of kids to mutilate the bodies). Other well-known cases include the AP photographer who participated in the Haifa Street murders of election workers, and the AP stringer who was nailed by the USMC in Fallujah, operating Nikon and Kalashnikov in tandem. What’s that old line from a Bond film? “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
Comment by Kevin O'Brien — 8/16/2005 @ 10:28 pm
Broader coverage of Iraq coming? Yost had his finger on the pulse. And now, some editors at papers who carry AP stories are finally listening to what their readership has been telling them …. but how much and what the results of this internal analyzing of how the Iraq war has be…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 8/17/2005 @ 8:29 am
I’ve seen at least one other Iraqi Freedom veteran, Jennifer O’Doan, making similar comments about the media’s coverage. I have to wonder what the deal is with the media. Is this war being lost in the newsroons of the AP, New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post? I’d like a straight answer.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 8/17/2005 @ 9:09 am
If it bleeds it leads. Shocks sells. Very generous; too generous. There is nothing boring about a midnight raid, a terrorist bomber stopped dead in his tracks or a series on an active Iraqi unit comprised of young men who are finally proud to fight for their own country. Mark Yost’s detractors, in their pride, told us what the right has charged for two years: mainstream news editors place high priority on enemy successes, however strategically insignificant, because the grim narrative matches their expectations and validates their beliefs.
Comment by Michael Ubaldi — 8/17/2005 @ 9:53 am