Non-moderates of both ideological stripes slant their
travelogues to match their own preconceived notions.
Quite true.
That's why it's important to get a variety of views, and not believe that any one source, or any set of sources with a similar voice (such as the major US media) has a clear and objective understanding of the reality. So I thought it useful to offer up a report that was not simply another "me-too" report of how terrible things are in Iraq. (Back in the 1060s, would we have thought it fair for foreign citizens to judge the condition of people living in Iowa by the events in Harlem and Watts?)
Reporters by nature go for the worst, the most graphic, the most awful, the compelling image. They also by nature disregard the reality of daily life for the vast majority of people. That's the nature of their business. That doesn't mean it has to--or should--control our world view. But too often it does.
Hardly a moderate approach!
And even within that bias toward the "newsworthy" which by definition means the abnormal, the extreme, the uncommon, there are some voices which are clearly and intentionally non-objective. On both sides. These are the sources that are most often quoted at length on this thread. They also tend not to blur but to eviscerate the line between reportage and opinion.
It is nice to hear from time to time that despite the images that reporters and editors choose to fill our TV screens and newspapers, many--perhaps most--of the average citizens in Iraq are living quite contented, satisfied, freer lives. |
