INDC Journal - NYT, WaPo vs. CQ, BC and TKS
By Bill
Geraghty makes some astute comparisons between blogs and the major dailies, though I don't think that the papers in question have a predetermined narrative that's merely anti-war; it's also paint-by-numbers, "if it bleeds it leads" journalism.
And while levying criticism, it's also important to note this aspect of the problem: whereas blogs are largely unconstrained by (financial) market forces, how do you sell mainstream papers with good news about potential peace accords and infant mortality rates? Prior to the election, I ran an experiment, posting an excerpt from one of Chrenkoff's "Good News from Iraq" round-ups immediately before a post that discussed the New York Times' missing explosives story.
Comments in the "discussion" under the positive post: 1.
Comments in the discussion under the negative post: 81.
Good or "not bad" news can be compelling (note Jim's excerpts from blogs), and ideology certainly plays a huge role in typical news coverage, but drama and the unquenchable human gravitation towards negativity are other reasons why major dailies have fallen into this grating pattern.
Though the ironic thing is, by this point, the desensitization to bad news might have actually increased a public appetite for something else.
Kerry Spot [ jim geraghty reporting ]
HAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST BECOME JUNK FOOD FOR WAR OPPONENTS?
Attention, Bill Keller: Why have so many American news consumers lost interest in reading mainstream media papers and watching non-Fox News television?
Because there is a considerable amount of good news in the war on terror that you just cannot find in the mainstream media. If you do, you find it on the last few paragraphs of the jump page.
Someone who read the New York Times today would read the following headlines for news stories related to the war on terror:
Bush Says Russia Must Make Good on Democracy; President Calling for New Era of Western Unity After Iraq Strains
Afghan Living Standards Among the Lowest, U.N. Finds
Attacks By Militant Groups Rise in Mosul
Meanwhile, in the Washington Post:
Bush Seeks to Mend Transatlantic Rift
Humvee Tragedy Forges Brotherhood of Soldiers; Iraqis Persevere to Recover Dead Americans
For Some, A Loss in Iraq Turns Into Antiwar Activism
Three Soldiers Killed in Baghdad
Now compare this with the top news from the Belmont Club:
Paul Martin to announce that Canada sending 30 soldiers to train Iraqis
EU to Open Baghdad Training Office; Officials Hail Unprecedented Unity Over Iraq
Bush, Chirac Call for Withdrawal of Syrian Troops From Lebanon
Hillary Clinton judges that the Insurgency in Iraq is Failing
Powerline asks: is a Ba'athist surrender in the works? It provides two links. The first, "U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents" describes alleged negotiations between elements of the Ba'athist insurgency and US officials.
Now compare this with the top story on Captain’s Quarters:
Taliban Giving Up In Afghanistan?
Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, said yesterday that a group of Taliban militia including senior officials will soon join the Afghan government's peace initiative.
"They are in Kabul seeking peace and to boost the reconciliation process," he said, adding that he was hopeful that the Taliban surrender would take place before the parliamentary elections, expected in the summer.
If you get your news from the mainstream media, you simply do not see any good news in the war on terror. Progress goes unreported. Every once in a while, when something tremendously significant happens, like the Iraqi elections, the tone of the coverage changes for a few days. But then it’s back to the daily box score of bombings and how many killed today, with quotes from Middle East experts that Iran was the real winner on Iraq’s historic election day, and how we can expect a 1979 embassy hostage crisis any day now.
That’s not journalism. Sure, it involves being in these countries, collecting facts and quotes, and putting them together into an article. But it’s basically shoehorning the facts to fit a prearranged template, that all of Bush’s efforts are failing and that nothing is going right in Afghanistan or Iraq.
News that is this selective and this shaded constitutes war-critic junk food – with no nutrition for the rest of us who want the whole picture, the good news and the bad.
UPDATE: TKS reader Peter observes:
In the Afghanistan article you cite, "Afghan Living Standards Among the Lowest, U.N. Finds", the lead paragraph is: "Three years after the United States drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan and vowed to rebuild, the war-shattered country ranked 173rd of 178 countries in the United Nations 2004 Human Development Index..." implying that the US was failing in its stated "vow".
However read a few more paragraphs and you find:
"Despite the problems, Afghanistan has shown remarkable progress in the three years since the United States-led war in 2001, the report said." "More than 54 percent of school-age children are enrolled, including four million high school students. The economy is making great strides, with growth of 16 percent in nondrug [emphasis added] gross domestic product in 2003 and predicted growth of 10 to 12 percent annually for the next decade."
These really should be a good news story especially if the article had provided its (very coccooned) readers the proper historical context detailing the breathtaking misery the Afghans had been subjected to for the 25 or so years preceding our "occupation".
UPDATE: A BBC story noticed by the Ace of Spades:
Australia is planning to send an additional 450 troops to Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard has said.
He said the new soldiers would replace a departing contingent of Dutch troops and protect Japanese troops doing humanitarian work in southern Iraq.
Australia already has about 950 troops stationed in and around Iraq.
UPDATE: Just heard from one of the sharpest essayists on the right (not identifying him/her, since I don't know if he/she wanted this reaction public): "How right you are. I never read the papers for 'news' any more, just for the op-ed pieces and occasional piece of analysis. It's reached the point where they detract from your understanding of the situation. It's sad." |
