A "radical" view of the press coverage of Iraq

[Jimbo]

In disagree with the article somewhat for a couple of reasons:

Taken as a whole, Broadcast/print/"new"/local/national/international media, Gentile's satement is accurate, and media types, especially national will cite this. Whne you go down the "rat-hole", you discover hwo the data points are skewed, and this is where I first take issue with Gentile's statement:

Local media provides the most in-depth and honest coverage of what actually happens on the ground. Local media is often there because of a local angle (NG/USAR unit operating or major military base in local area). Bottomline they are covering the actions because of localn interest do to the servicemembers being part of the local community. The reporting tends to generally serve as an informative piece for the locals. Local boradcast tries to do the saem, but they usually do not have the resources (time) to go as in depth.

National Media seeks to shape opinion more than just inform. The broadcast media is further constrained by competing priorities hwich further cuts down on depth. fFurthermore, the national media is Bagdhad centric, unless on specific tasker because they have to be ready to respond to breaking news from where ever in Iraq (look at the background shots when the correspondants are on, they are almost all the same) . This leads to shortcuts that go along with 120mm was saying. National print is better, because they have more than 2 minutes of airtime, but they are also trying to shape opinion, not inform, but you need a compelling story for column space, and somethings work better than others, or they serve an agenda. Broadcast media makes this clear and you can say they very different opinions between TV and radio participation, but that should be suprising to nobody around here.

New media provides some compelling and accurate reports from all over (mIchale Yon, for example). However, there are issues with verification and authenticity at times, but hey its a new technology, and it will take some time to mature (This has incredible potential).

My second issue with Gentile, is the "location, location, location" line from real estate. In Bagdhad you have a wide variety of national media avilable with all kinds of different opinions and perspectives on the US campaign/policy in Iraq. f you are not in Bagdhad, you do not see this kind of coverage. So I would contend that while Gentile made an accurate statement for what he saw in Bagdhad, I disagree with it based on what I saw in other parts of Iraq where I was.

Finally, 120mm brought up some very prescient points about the media. As much as military members have generalizations made about us based on some not so stellar acts by fellow servicemembers, I do not think that media understands that their image is not so hot based on points that 120mm pointed out, of which the failure to condem the Dan Rather crew on such an egregious foul as Bush NG story (opinions aside about Bush) is a great example. They ran a story presenting fraudulent documents as factual evidence to meet an agenda, and that is wrong regardless of who is/was President. This leaves some credibility issues the media has to sort out at the national levels.

A couple of thoughts I have on this. IF all of the reporters and media pundits are such experts on how to conduct war and when to conduct it, then shouldn't they be open to my opinions and thoughts on how to craft a newstory/broadcast. Is the reciprocity of expertise not a two way street?

Aslo the deep thought (which is pretty shallow): If the first three "estates" of scoitey are considered divine and formed of God's will, and the media describes itself as the "Fourth Estate" the who created the Fourth Estate? (I think I hear the church lady yelling an answer)

[Sargent]

My second issue with Gentile, is the "location, location, location" line from real estate. In Bagdhad you have a wide variety of national media avilable with all kinds of different opinions and perspectives on the US campaign/policy in Iraq. f you are not in Bagdhad, you do not see this kind of coverage. So I would contend that while Gentile made an accurate statement for what he saw in Bagdhad, I disagree with it based on what I saw in other parts of Iraq where I was.

The media aren't really in any other areas of Iraq. Even military reporting from these areas gets things wrong. I get more information on my husband's AO from jihadist or jihadist-sympathetic sites than I do from various American media outlets. They are there and have an interest to tell the story. All I need to do is reorient the skew, which isn't that hard -- their filter is pretty obvious. To be perfectly honest, I don't think it would help the "cause" much to tell the story from where he is. Yes, there are some nice uplifting points about the budding relationships between the American and Iraqi forces and such, but the rest is fairly dismal.

However, not getting the details correct, or not even covering the story to begin with, is different from telling only one side of the story to skew opinion to one political opinion or another. Again, that was Gentile's thesis -- that the media with which he dealt did not only tell the bad news so as to turn opinion against the war, but there was enough bad news that to _not_ tell it would be equally biased.

[skiguy]

If anyone's interested in what an inexperienced, uneducated in Small Wars/Counterinsuirgency (but am working on it), average American citizen's opinion is, here's my thoughts.
I disagree with the article. Most of the media (in America anyway) is slanted Left and is very defeatist. As one who gets a lot of his information from the media (including military reports), it takes some work and time to get the whole story. Most average Americans are not news junkies like myself. Most get their information from the "big 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) or their local newspaper. Yes, it is the individual's responsibility to educate one's self to the truth. But it is also the media's responsibility to report the truth in a balanced fashion. As far as the MSM, I just don't see it (when I watch it, I prefer FOX over the others, but they aren't off the hook with this either).

Here's an example: I'll ask some guy at work "Are we losing in Iraq?". He will answer yes and tell me how Brian Williams says it's a quagmire. I'll then show him the press releases on the mnf-Iraq web site and point out all the articles about capturing/detaining/killing terrorists, finding weapons stashes, and buildings/infrastructure going up. I can see the surprise in his eyes, then I ask if he 's ever heard any of these on the evening news.

I think most people just don't take or have the time to dig around for news and rely on the 6 o'clock news for their information. When I do watch it, I get infuriated..although, most of the time, I just watch to test myself if I can pick out the misinformation...even taking notes. I get a kick out of the stories they do about troops or future troops, and they are trying really hard to put a negative spin on it, but it's not working. That makes me laugh.

I'm not one who thinks everything is rosy and going fine in Iraq or in the GWOT. I am fully aware it is a WAR. But I am sick and tired of the constant negative barrage and the ignoring of the good things. Fact of the matter is, most of the average American public gets their information from these media sources and IMHO, it's pathetic as well as alarming how the news is presented. If American support is waning, it's not Bush's fault (although he could have done a much better job countering the negative propaganda), it's not the Soldiers' fault, it's mainly the fault of the media. As one who is lookng in from the outside, the only similarity I see between Iraq and Viet Nam is how the media portrays it. According to them, we lost.