Depression Settles In
RAnting Profs
By Cori Dauber
It is absurd to pretend that reporters aren't human beings, with human emotions as well as attitudes and perspectives, and that those human complexities won't influence the way they see what they see -- and therefore, inevitably, their reporting.
Sometimes the impact of that influence is so inconsequential we just ignore it. (Remember the thunderous applause when the Governer of Pennslyvania went up to the assembled pressies and announced that they had established that the 9 trapped coal miners were for sure alive?) Sometimes the pressies are just desparate to supress their emotions in order to be "objective," in a way that just seems silly to me. (Are American reporters really "objective" about which side wins the war? We don't need or want reporters who are neutral as long as they are able to retain their critical reporting skills.)
The reason I mention this is that two things strike me about the piece John Burns (who you know we love) has in this morning's Times. The first is that the piece confirms something I was thinking about late yesterday.
I think you all know that I was a strong supporter of the war, and remain a supporter of the war. And you can't read more than a few posts here and not know that I also believe that the situation on the ground is far, far better than the impression one would get from following the mainstream media coverage.
But that having been said, as much as one might hope that every Iraqi who wants to vote and believes in the electoral process will stand up for his beliefs, it's awfully hard to be too critical of someone who takes a pass when there are flyers in the neighborhood saying, you know, we'll follow you home and we won't just get you -- we'll get your children and you know damn well we can do it.
Because the bastards have spent the last two years proving they will do it.
And as much as I believe this country should be proud of what we've done freeing the Iraqi people from that obsenity of a regime, until every Iraqi who wants to vote, or run for office, or speak publicly, or write for a newspaper, feels as if they can do so -- then Iraq isn't really free.
We aren't done.
Progress is progress. But that's what it is, progress.
The other thing that strikes me about Burns' article, and this is why I started by talking about reporter's emotions impacting their writing, is that he writes as if he's tired, and depressed, so tired and so depressed that he can't keep it out of his writing.
A few highlights:
Here's what I mean when I say the blindingly self-evident thoughts I had the other day were crystallized again by Burns:
When American troops entered Baghdad and overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein 21 months ago, Raad al-Naqib felt free at last.
But Dr. Naqib, a 46-year-old Sunni dentist who opposed Mr. Hussein, will not vote Sunday when Iraqis will have their first opportunity in a generation to participate in an election with no predetermined outcome. It is, he said, far too dangerous when insurgent groups have warned that they will kill anybody who approaches a polling station.
But, as I also wrote yesterday, as much as the use of the individual example is often nothing more than a crutch used because it's just a technique reporters know how to use, whether it adds to the reader's or viewer's understanding or not, there are times when it is an enormously powerful tool.
Another point -- are there any reporters at the Times who actually understand what polls are and how they work? Here's one of the finest reporters in the biz writing something you'd use for an example of a logical fallacy when teaching a freshmen level argument class:
Although the American military command has cited surveys purportedly showing 80 percent of Baghdad's residents are eager to vote, many people interviewed by reporters are like Dr. Naqib who say they will stay away.
Yes, because when 80 percent say yes, that leaves 20 percent saying no, and depending on how many people we're talking about, 20 percent may still be many, many people.
He pushes this even further:
In one Baghdad office, only one of 20 people who were asked said he intended to vote; the others, all citing the fear of being attacked by insurgents, either as they walk to the polls - all civilian vehicle traffic has been banned on election day - or after they return home. American commanders have included Baghdad among four Iraqi provinces where they say security issues pose a major threat to the voter turnout.
And I ask again, are there any Times reporters who understand anything about the construction of scientific polls?
There's something called self-selection, and the first question I would hope my freshmen would ask here would be -- what kind of office was that, there, John? And the second question should be -- in what kind of neighborhood?
What concerns me is, I'm pretty sure most readers of the Times probably know about as much about polls as Burns apparently does, so they may well read that and think, yeah, wow, how about that -- that poll must have gotten something wrong there somewhere.
One other thing:
American commanders, acknowledging they have little chance of stopping the suicide bombers once the bomb-laden vehicles set out, have authorized the machine-gunners in the last vehicle of each convoy to open fire on any driver who ignores hand signals and warning shots to back off as he approaches a convoy from the rear.
This tactic has led to a growing number of incidents in which American gunners, in Humvees traveling at 50 miles an hour or less, have fired at suspected car bombers, only to discover afterward that the drivers who died were innocent civilians who had missed the warning signals, or perhaps never knew that overtaking American convoys was likely to be fatal.
These incidents have compounded a widespread impression among the people of Baghdad that the Americans are careless of Iraqi lives. Dr. Naqib, the dentist, fearful as he is of insurgent attacks, said he feared the Americans more. "The Americans, they are part of the terrorism," he said.
"They're so frightened, anything that happens to them, they start shooting right away."
Now, to be clear, I have no doubt that there have been incidents where civilian cars have been shot at accidentally, causing civilian casualties, precisely because of this kind of misunderstanding. And I have no doubt that these incidents are causing untold amounts of bad feeling between the American forces and the Iraqi population, bad feeling no doubt magnified by our less than, er, magnificent efforts at communicating with said population.
But hasn't the Times itself reported on the misunderstandings that have grown up around these events? Burns is here clearly taking reports from Iraqis on these incidents at face value, no? Because this little bit is awfully imprecise and vague as to the numbers: all we know is that there have been some deaths, and those deaths have produced bad feeling, and that sounds an awful lot as if he's been told by Iraqis, the Americans have this policy, and because of it Iraqis are dying, see? they don't care about Iraqi lives.
They don't know a number (gossip like that never is precise about that kind of thing), he confirmed the policy, and there you go.
So the facts are true, at least the fact that the policy exists, but in essence he is still reporting gossip, if you see what I mean, when what he should be saying is, there is this policy, the import of which is hugely negative, everyone is talking about it. Because if he had confirmable numbers on the incidents and the deaths, you can bet he'd be using them |
