“very few reporters have served”
“…very few reporters have served.” It’s not the most important line in this UPI analysis of the media uber-coverage of the wounded ABC News team (Woodruff and Vogt). However, it is an instructive line. (The article is by Pamela Hess, UPI’s Pentagon reporter.)
Why do you think this is such a huge story?” wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. “It’s a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you’d think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.
“There’s a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That’s a really impolite and impolitic thing to say … but it’s what you would hear over here.”
Celebrity culture is the culprit, as well as the entertainment media’s need for immediate emotional and visceral connection (to attract viewers):
Modern American celebrity culture has certainly magnified the latest incident: Woodruff is recognizable, relatable, respectable. He was selected for his job as co-anchor not just for his undoubted journalistic credentials but also because ABC decided he was the kind of person Americans would want to welcome into their homes every night. His injury, therefore, feels personal to many viewers.
“He’s the kind of celebrity we feel we know. That’s the mature of these anchors. But we feel we know these people and we care what happens to them,” Montgomery said.
That leaves the uncomfortable question about how much the media, or the American public, cares about the injured who are less well known, but in just as dire straits.
And here’s the instructive line in context:
Having a personal connection to someone injured or killed on the battlefield is a relatively rare experience for journalists. Fewer than 1 percent of the U.S. population is part of the military; very few reporters have served. The war is comfortably distant, until a fellow journalist is affected. It could have been me, we think. The full weight of war is hard to comprehend until it happens to you, or someone you know, or someone like you.
Read the whole article.
Woodruff Incident: Soldiers React To Press Coverag This idea that journalists…are somehow an elite group of intellectuals is at the root of all problems with news reporting today.
Trackback by The Dread Pundit Bluto — 2/1/2006 @ 12:11 pm
Someone else has commented that the media frenzy suggests to the terrorists that reporters are a very valuable target. This probably makes another incident more likely although Steven Vincent and Michael Kelly gave up their lives with less attention paid. The battle is being fought on the evening news as well as in Iraq.
Comment by Michael Kennedy — 2/1/2006 @ 3:28 pm
I had no idea who Woodruff was before he was injured, I gave up watching evening news long ago. But I do know who Erik Kurilla is.
Comment by Steve in Nashville — 2/1/2006 @ 3:37 pm
This has actually been bothering me since I saw Good Morning America (which is understandably shaken, given that it’s their good friend) continue on and on about them - talking about their courage and conviction for putting their lives on the line. Well, what about the hundreds of thousands of young men and women doing it every day? What recognition do THEY get in these same arenas? If the “story” is so important, shouldn’t the people actually MAKING the story be just as heralded for THEIR sacrifice? Update: soldiers don’t have to be there, either. They volunteered, just like reporters. That being said, I do wish the best for the both of them and hope for a full recovery.
Comment by Walt Jacobs — 2/1/2006 @ 4:04 pm
The point Mr. Bay makes about “Having a personal connection to someone injured or killed on the battlefield is a relatively rare experience for journalists.†explaining the fascination with the Woodruff story is valid. I suspect that in addition, it goes a long way in explaining the Washington Post Editorial Board’s failure of to see just how inappropriate their editorial cartoon on the 29th was. You’ll have seen the cartoon and JCS letter by now on Michelle Malkin’s Site, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004430.htm. In the JCS’s 24 star letter they ask they ask “Where do we get such men and women?” Answered rhetorically, and to themselves about the Editorial Board of the Post, I suspect it would be “probably not from your cartoonist’s family, the families of your favorite political party’s leaders and certainly not yours eitherâ€.
Comment by Al Nugent — 2/1/2006 @ 4:09 pm
I didn’t know who Woodruff was before he was injured, having given up on MSM network news long ago. But I do know who Erik Kurilla is.
Comment by Steve in Nashville — 2/1/2006 @ 4:11 pm
The point made about “Having a personal connection to someone injured or killed on the battlefield is a relatively rare experience for journalists.†explaining the fascination with the Woodruff story is valid. I suspect that in addition, it goes a long way in explaining the Washington Post Editorial Board’s failure to see just how inappropriate their editorial cartoon on the 29th was. You can see the cartoon and the JCS letter to the Post on Michelle Malkin’s Site, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004430.htm. In the JCS’s 24 star letter they ask they ask “Where do we get such men and women?” Answered rhetorically, and to themselves about the Editorial Board of the Post, I suspect it would be “probably not from your cartoonist’s family, the families of your favorite political party’s leaders and certainly not yours eitherâ€.
Comment by Al Nugent — 2/1/2006 @ 4:13 pm
They’re reporting like it’s 1999…. or 89, or 79. God bless Woodruff and his associate, and the bravery they showed, and I wish them well. But this coverage wildly exagerrates the importance of Woodruff to the American psyche. I might expect it not only in Olden Tymes but with guys who came of age then–if, say, Ted Koppel were injured today. But that would only be out of respect for the past. As for the present, this is way over the top. You would have thought a head of state had been assassinated the way some of these people were covering it. The funny thing is, I doubt it would have been covered this way back in the day when network anchors had much more authority. On his best days, I bet a David Brinkley or cetainly a Frank Reynolds (any of you old enough to remember both?) would have thought it was too much attention and lacked dignity.
Comment by Christopher Fotos — 2/1/2006 @ 4:31 pm
The press likes to play-up attacks on reporters for the same reason that actors like to portray themselves as targets of McCarthyism - they believe that it gives them more moral credibility. So while very few reporters will ever conduct the type of risky in-the-warzone reporting that Woodruff and Vogt have, they can all benefit from their reflected credibility. If you ever hang-out with J-School students/grads, you’ll soon learn that they are among the most persecuted people on earth and that without their courage and fortitude democracy itself would collapse. Be sure to ignore the fact that they tend to comprise the lower thirty percent of their entering classes and have a demonstrably lower comprehension of political/social/technical issues that the average college grad.
Comment by moe — 2/1/2006 @ 4:39 pm
Is Woodruff recognizable? How many Americans watch the–is it the NBC nightly news? I don’t even know what network he appears on because I ignore them all, and increasingly, so do many other Americans. I’ve been wondering why this story has been getting so much airplay, and now I am convinced that it is not because we care, but because the people in the newsrooms care–Woodruff’s one of them. Otherwise this story is of little consequence–or perhaps I should say, of no more consequence than 20,000 other stories that we haven’t heard, and perhaps of less consequence, because its peculiarity means it tells us less than more representative stories.
Comment by ClayNY — 2/1/2006 @ 4:59 pm
I’m afraid I disagree with the analysis. I don’t know or care who Woodruff is. In a general way, I’m sorry for his injury, but more sorry for the soldiers. I think the reason he’s been all over the media is purely that the media is self-centered. Narcissistic. Inflated egos. In other words, it’s not that they “have a personal connection” to Woodruff; it’s that they actually believe the killing or injury of a media person is somehow important. And that we should all think so, as well. But honestly, it isn’t and I don’t.
Comment by Calarato — 2/1/2006 @ 5:53 pm
Celebrity culture is part of it — but there has been little or no attempt by the media to help create NEW celebrities. Like the Col. that was injured that Michael Yon covered. (Kikula? I can’t remember; not enough celebrity!) The media should be creating more heros. But MSM doesn’t want heros, only victims.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 2/1/2006 @ 5:53 pm
Celebrity culture is the culprit, as well as the entertainment media’s need for immediate emotional and visceral connection (to attract viewers While that may certainly be part of the motivation underlying the media’s obsession with this story, it’s only a small part. I have lived in worked in Hollywood for 15 years and have dealt with some of the biggest names in the business (including an extremely needy Michael Moore many years ago). The almost universal narcicissm of “celebrites” is not to be believed. After 15 years I am still amazed by it. In fact, after 9/11 people here were positive that the studios would be the next big target for terrorists and many were actually bummed out when no attack materialized because al Qaeda didn’t think they were important enough to attack. Many are still steadfast in their insistence that Hollywood is the most important symbol of American culture and that it is at the top of al Qaeda’s list. In this case, the media really believes that the American people are enormously concerned for Woodruff because he is, in their eyes, such an important person. I am in no way criticizing Woodruff or his cameraman, or minimizing their injuries, but their journalistic status confers neither more nor less importance to this incident than any of the other thousands in which our brave soldiers have been killed or injured in Iraq. How big is the audience for the nightly ABC newscast? 10 million people? I’d be willing to bet that not many more than that even know who he is, but the media doesn’t realize this. They think the whole country is riveted to the news of his recovery (which I hope is a full and speedy one). However, if you said this to anyone in the MSM they would give you a blank stare because, I assure you that they have never for a second considered that it may not be big news. They would insist that the war has really hit home to the majority of Americans now that such a prominent figure has been injured. They have never even considered the alternative. And of course it helps that Woodruff is part of the liberal media. Michael Kelley’s death didn’t hardly garner a mention outside of the beltway press and I guarantee you that Brit Hume wouldn’t get the same coverage if he were injured. Never underestimate the self importance of the elite in the media.
Comment by jt007 — 2/1/2006 @ 6:03 pm
My brother-in-law served in the Balad hospital which Pamela mentions in the UPI story - the which she visited but felt there was no “hook” to make it worthy of a news article…. I wonder if she would’ve found a hook if the facility had terrible conditions? No, since the facility was well-staffed and well-equipped, there was no hook. Pamela - the “hook” for the story was that the facilities being provided to our troops are better than facilities back in the US. Heck, you could’ve even taken an anti-Bush slant in your “reporting,” talking about how we needed more facilities like the government-run one in Balad throughout the US. Regards, St Wendeler Another Rovian Conspiracy
Comment by ARC:St Wendeler — 2/1/2006 @ 6:04 pm
It’s hard, sometimes, to tell the difference between the way the world has changed and the way your perception of the world has changed. If we feel that something’s always been this way, is that so or are we just projecting “now” into the past. Or if we feel that something is new, is it new or have we just finally noticed it? It *seems* like a recent thing… journalists reporting on journalism and journalisms personalities as if those things were news. Is that new or did I just notice it for the first time many years ago? Is it a factor of the 24 hour news network? Certainly the injury of Woodruff is *news* and should be reported. Still, as several people have pointed out, is this more important, as news, than the injury of anyone else? We do value some people over other people so that injury to them means more and gets more air time. A child dying is more important to us than an adult. Violence toward a school teacher or a someone “helping others” is a bigger deal. If two people get mugged and one is a priest, the priest will be in the news becuase it upsets us more. David Brinkley I remember. Frank Reynolds may have been on a network we couldn’t get on our television. I don’t know who he was. But yes, it would seem rather strange to listen to a news report about news reporters. Granted, they only had half an hour.
Comment by Synova — 2/1/2006 @ 6:07 pm
TELEVISION ANCHORMAN INJURED IN IRAQ!!! IRAQ IS STILL DANGEROUS FDOR REPORTERS!!! WHAT MUST WE DO? “Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy for the MSM. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of all MSM reporters from Iraq. Some claim the answer is to put even more reporters on the ground, but many of our reporters are already on their third deployment, our MSM cannot recruit to its current target, even as they lower recruiting standards. My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of reporting in Iraq to the Iraqi reporters. MSM reporting in in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. The MSM has become a catalyst for violence. That’s why we must redeploy reporters immediately!” (SATIRE OFF.) First, I want to extend my condolences to the Woodruff anf Vogt families. I am praying for their swift and complete recovery. Now…. here’s the truth: EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT ACCIDENTALLY ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS ATTACK WAS A CELEBRITY, THERE IS NO NEWS-WORTHINESS IN THIS STORY. The enemy hasn’t surrendered and they continue to target soft targets: mosques; funerals; weddings; children getting candy; Iraqi police; Iraqi Army. Reporters riding in Iraq Army vehicles re juist collateral damage. http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/02/newsanchor-injured-in-iraq-time-to.html
Comment by reliapundit — 2/1/2006 @ 8:59 pm
Insularity Of The Media Does he really mean to suggest that because a media star was hurt, the American people will now understand the dangers in Iraq? Does he really believe that because one of his own has been injured that those injuries are more significant and will reson…
Trackback by Sensible Mom — 2/1/2006 @ 9:00 pm
Even more frustrating was David Gergen’s comment two nights ago on the News Hour where he said, “…the injuries over the weekend of Bob Woodruff and his camerman, Mr. Vogt, I think, have underlined for Americans, in a very graphic way, just how perilous it remains in Iraq…” Does he really mean to suggest that because a media star was hurt, the American people will now understand the dangers in Iraq? Does he really believe that because one of his own has been injured that those injuries are more significant and will resonate more with the American people than the injuries and deaths of our servicemen? His comment was so utterly shallow and self-absorbed and speaks to the insularity of the media..
Comment by Sensible Mom — 2/1/2006 @ 9:11 pm
Today’s Iraq Report Attacks (and subsequently fatalities) are down in Iraq. This month’s fatality rate was lower than last month, w…
Trackback by Media Lies — 2/1/2006 @ 10:06 pm
I give Woodruff credit for at least going first hand to Iraq to gather insight and impressions only available to those who actually spend time there; I also think it praiseworthy that he and his camera man volunteered to embed with an Iraqi unit. That being said, what is nausea inducing is the reaction of their stateside colleagues in the MSM. I did not see them paying any attention to the bravery of Michael Yon over his many months of blogging from there.
Comment by marlowe anderson — 2/1/2006 @ 10:08 pm
The media would not be making this big of a deal if Woodruff had been killed. However his face might have taken some damage. This plays into the vain bastard’s worst fears.
Comment by John Davies — 2/1/2006 @ 11:04 pm
“The war is comfortably distant, until a fellow journalist is affected. It could have been me, we think. The full weight of war is hard to comprehend until it happens to you, or someone you know, or someone like you.” Imagine a world where dozens of MSM stars had dies in the 9/11 attacks…
Comment by Scott Foster — 2/2/2006 @ 12:30 am
The “Golden Child” was hurt. Bob Woodward was the glowing exemplar of all that is good in the anchorman trope, and his wounding speaks much of the chaos inherent in the world. There are those who seek to make the world controllable. Bob’s wounding says the world cannot be controlled, and this shocks them. His injuries say that this a a contingent life; depending greatly on the actions of others, and the workings of blind chance. It is an incident that tells us that we are not in control, and to a segment that needs control it is a matter that must be endlessly discussed and fussed over. For by discussion and fussing they may come to understand, and by understanding arrive at a seeming of control. It is also a revelation. The unveiling of the fact it can happen to you. That one is not immune to the vicissitudes of life. When a chosen of God such as Bob Woodward can come to harm, how can a common shmoo avoid it? So people are trying to deal with it. To make it understandable, and by making it understandable make it controllable. The fuss and bother currently underway speaks to our need to talk things out, and in the talking out reassure ourselves. From what I’ve heard it appears that Bob is in a bad way. His physical and intellectual abilities may be impaired. Word is his on camera career is at an end. His journalistic career in any capacity may be over. At the least he may be facing long term rehabilitation. So in Robert Woodward we see once again how chance trumps fate. That scares people, and the frightened need comfort and reassurance. That, really is all his co-workers are asking for. It’s human, and nothing really to fuss about.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 2/2/2006 @ 2:13 am
It isn’t so hard to understand why soldiers (or observant civilians, for that matter) might grumble at a story like this. The writer just said, in so many words, “You are not us. We don’t know you, and you are not like us.” Is it too much to ask that reporters actually make an effort to understand the people they report on?
Comment by Uncle Squid — 2/2/2006 @ 10:02 am
Reporters Austin Bay notes that very few reporters have ever served in the military. Really? You’d never guess it from their war reporting.
Trackback by Dean's World — 2/2/2006 @ 11:04 am
“Woodruff is recognizable, relatable, respectable.” BS, I’m willing to bet that the overwhelming, vast majority of Americans had never heard of this guy.
Comment by Jabba the Tutt — 2/4/2006 @ 11:02 am