Media Incivility and Bias in Iraq
Editorial
April 20, 2004 - Ashbrook Center
by: Robert Alt
Robert D. Alt is a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at The John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University currently reporting from Iraq. You can follow his daily progress at No Left Turns.
<font size=4>
Baghdad, Iraq — Growing up during the gang wars in Los Angeles, watching the local network news was a gruesome affair. When a shooting occurred, the camera crews would literally focus on the pools of blood in the street, and if they could capture a chalk outline or an actual body bag, then all the better. I was reminded of this macabre voyeurism-masquerading-as-news by the media response to the tragic events Fallujah, in which four American contractors were killed and their bodies desecrated not once, but a thousand times over on the evening news and in the morning papers.
The poor judgment exercised by the media in the handling
of this event betrays not merely incivility, but a deep-
seated and pervasive bias in the handling of the war in
Iraq.
Beginning with the print media, the New York Times made
the editorial decision to run a picture of a charred body
hanging from a bridge on its front page. One wonders what
the Times editorial meeting must have been like the day
that picture was chosen. Did anyone suggest that running
the picture might be insensitive to the family and friends
of the deceased? Did anyone question whether this front
page image might be a bit graphic sitting on the breakfast
table when little Johnny came down for his Cheerios? And
did anyone have the foresight to wonder whether running a
picture like this on the front page might be exactly what
the terrorists wanted—media attention being the raison
d’etre of the recent "spectacular" attacks—and therefore
ponder whether it was appropriate for the newspaper of
record to be used as little more than a pawn by this gang
of thugs?
The picture was inevitably chosen for its shock value, but there were numerous other pictures that would have shocked. The images of young Iraqis jumping up and down on the burning cars, or dancing in the streets after the Americans’ deaths would have inevitably served that purpose, without requiring the paper to join the terrorists in the act of parading the dead.
The Times presumably is not hurting for "ratings" like some local news channel, so why sink to this level? The answer seems to be to enrage.
Any of the other images mentioned would have shocked, but the sight of an American desecrated and left hanging from a bridge would appeal to the public passions like no other picture from the scene.
It seems based on the paper’s general editorial position—a
position that far too frequently spills over to its news
pages—that the Times meant this rage to be directed not
primarily toward the terrorists, but toward those
politicians who brought us to this inhospitable land.
Americans, however, showed sounder judgment than the editors of the Times following these horrors, calling not for the President’s head, but for firmer resolve and just retribution to those who committed these heinous acts. Indeed a recent Time/CNN poll found that 57 percent of respondents think the United States should "intensify" its military effort in Iraq.
Of course, the networks were not to be outdone by the
print media. While a number of networks chose to air
graphic scenes from Fallujah, one deserves special
mention. Charlie Ryan and Rachel Levin of NBC contacted
military officials in Baghdad immediately after the events
in Fallujah to request an interview with a group of
soldiers. A Coalition military source confirmed that the
crew wished to show soldiers a graphic video of the events
in Fallujah, and to record the soldiers’ responses. When
military officials objected for obvious reasons to
this "Clockwork Orange" proposal, the NBC reporters were
incredulous, suggesting that the idea was somehow
appropriate because the victims were not soldiers.
Needless to say, the military officials did not find that
distinction relevant.
In theory, it would be easy to dismiss the NBC proposal as a mere lapse in judgment, but in reality, it is a vivid example of a larger problem. The same kind of thinking that permits the NBC reporters to draw a line between how a soldier would view the killing of soldiers versus the killing of Americans allows other journalist to give credence—in the absence of any credible evidence—to the assertion that American soldiers are deliberately targeting women, children, and the elderly in Fallujah. In both acts, the media utterly misunderstands the humanity of the American soldier, who frequently puts himself in harms way to avoid civilian casualties.
At best, many reporters have trouble relating to the
military and the soldiers, and at worst, they view the
military, the soldiers, and their mission in Iraq with
open contempt. Questions for military officials at
briefings are often little more than pointed accusations
based on rumor and gossip. When answers are given, many in
the press pool express greater skepticism toward the
military response than toward the innuendo which formed
the basis for the question. Put simply, the reporters
begin from a position of fundamental distrust of the
military.
As case in point, in the wake of Fallujah numerous
reporters have asked questions which accuse the Coalition
of targeting, and indeed having a policy of targeting
women and children. Aside from learning the first thing
about Coalition rules of engagement and the dire
consequences imposed for violating these protocols, these
reporters would have done well to have met 22-year-old
Specialist Hart from the 2d Battalion, 3d Field Artillery
Regiment Gunners stationed in Adhamiya. Spc. Hart received
a Purple Heart on his first day in Baghdad for a gunshot
wound he suffered when his vehicle came under small arms
fire and missile attack. Needless to say, Hart had seen
many disturbing things during the course of his year in
Iraq, but one thing clearly struck him the hardest: a girl
of no more than eight or nine who was killed when her
father attempted to run down a soldier at a checkpoint.
The event happened many months ago, but the anguish still
wrenched Hart’s face, and cracked his voice. Yes,
Americans pulled the trigger, but this little girl, whose
father had chosen to take her along on his suicide
mission, was not the target. No one who talked to
Specialist Hart would ever make that mistake. His pained
words, and the silent testimony of the Marines who died in
Fallujah because the military put them in harms way rather
than risk more civilian casualties, bare witness as to the
irresponsibility of journalists who report unsubstantiated
claims about serious issues like the targeting of
civilians.
While there are certainly reporters in Iraq attempting to do an evenhanded job under difficult conditions, too many allow their preconceived notions about the military, the President, and the justifications for the war to color their reporting. This may lead to poor judgment in cases like the depictions of the Fallujah contractors, or irresponsible reporting in the case of "targeting" reports. In both cases the American soldier, and the American people deserve better. |
