Sherry Ricchiardi has a thoughtful and distressing piece in American Journalism Review about how we've watched "stories about Iraq move from 1A to the inside pages of his newspaper, if they ran at all."
As well, it's a challenge for news media to tell the stories of Iraq in ways that transcend mind-numbing casualty lists--especially when the presidential election offers a glittering news alternative. The Bush administration doesn't make coverage easy, with it's ridiculous efforts to keep the media distanced from American casualties by banning on-base photographs of coffins and roping off reporters at Arlington funerals.
Most disturbingly, it's a challenge to keep reporters alive and healthy in Iraq, particularly when newsroom budgets are fragile. A lot of midsize papers are, quite reasonably, covering Iraq with a local angle--local military families, Brownie troops that send care packages to soldiers, a local facility that manufactures military supplies. Richiarrdi's reporting for this story revealed that newsrooms didn't seem to be making a conscious decision to lay off Iraq coverage. Some of the editors she talks with feel comfortable with the shift as simply the natural course of a news cycle--many days, there isn't anything new to say about Iraq. But I feel the falseness in that. The decision of my country to go to Iraq is probably the single most influential foreign policy decision of my lifetime--there must be more to say about it then simply filing a formula report each time a suicide bomber hits.
During the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the newshole for network TV news. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent. ..
The numbers also were dismal for the country's dailies. ... during the first three months of this year, front-page stories about Iraq in the (Sacramento) Bee were down 70 percent from the same time last year. Articles about Iraq once topped the list for reader feedback. ...
A daily tracking of 65 newspapers by the Associated Press confirms a dip in page-one play throughout the country. In September 2007, the AP found 457 Iraq-related stories (154 by the AP) on front pages, many related to a progress report delivered to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Over the succeeding months, that number fell to as low as 49. A spike in March 2008 was largely due to a rash of stories keyed to the conflict's fifth anniversary ...
During the early stages of shock and awe, Americans were glued to the news as Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad ...
By March 2008, a striking reversal had taken place. Only 28 percent of Americans knew that 4,000 military personnel had been killed in the conflict ... Eight months earlier, 54 percent could cite the correct casualty rate.The challenge, of course, is how to face the powerlessness that these stories fill us citizens with--and lead us to avoid Iraq news. One source in the AJR article notes that after five years, with no end in sight, most people have come to their conclusions about the U.S. war in Iraq, and they're unlikely to change it or get new insight when they hear about another market bombing on the radio.
As well, it's a challenge for news media to tell the stories of Iraq in ways that transcend mind-numbing casualty lists--especially when the presidential election offers a glittering news alternative. The Bush administration doesn't make coverage easy, with it's ridiculous efforts to keep the media distanced from American casualties by banning on-base photographs of coffins and roping off reporters at Arlington funerals.
Most disturbingly, it's a challenge to keep reporters alive and healthy in Iraq, particularly when newsroom budgets are fragile. A lot of midsize papers are, quite reasonably, covering Iraq with a local angle--local military families, Brownie troops that send care packages to soldiers, a local facility that manufactures military supplies. Richiarrdi's reporting for this story revealed that newsrooms didn't seem to be making a conscious decision to lay off Iraq coverage. Some of the editors she talks with feel comfortable with the shift as simply the natural course of a news cycle--many days, there isn't anything new to say about Iraq. But I feel the falseness in that. The decision of my country to go to Iraq is probably the single most influential foreign policy decision of my lifetime--there must be more to say about it then simply filing a formula report each time a suicide bomber hits.
Happily--yes, happily--Richiarrdi notes the extraordinary coverage of Iraq that has emerged, including The Washington Post's stories on the neglect of veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; and the same newspaper's reporting on private security contracts in Iraq. And there are others. Check it out.
Ah yes, I've noticed about the coverage and really, it's outrageous. That is, if you think, as I do, that it's an illegal and immoral war. I guess I don't think that's what most Americans think. If they did, I suspect it would be more of a story. What seems to get people's attention is when a lot more young (American) men and women are dying than has been the case since the US counterinsurgency, euphemistically known as "the surge". Loss of a critical mass of bodies. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the Bush administration doesn't allow photos of soldiers in coffins and so forth. The death and dying is very far away. And so the war is very far away. No one asks what's going on, no one wants to tell them. Granted, reporting from Iraq is dangerous. You can't imagine how dangerous it was to report from the front during WW II. I don't think that's why the stories languish in bits on the back pages. The Iraq war just isn't affecting very many Americans very much. Tragically, it's just not news.
God, I've really depressed myself now!
Posted by: hysperia | May 29, 2008 at 12:37 AM