More examples of “media malpractice,” this time courtesy of The Weekly Standard.
(In case that last wasn’t unambiguous, it’s the Standard that seems to be reporting on the malpractice, rather than necessarily committing it. But maybe there’s media bias in the article about media bias. You never know…)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
First, I feel compelled to point out that this isn't a news story, it's yet another op/ed in a long string of them from Mssrs Roggio and Gartenstein-Ross. They're big fans of the 'everyone's ganging up on the president' club.
As I am trolling through the stories he linked to in his piece I begin to wonder if either bothered to read them all the way through or just stopped when they got to a part they didn't like and started writing their op/ed. I'm having trouble discerning where in these stories the operation has been called a 'defeat'.
The NYT story is about the complexity of the political situation in Basra and Iraq by extension and how the battles are seen by the Iraqis on the ground. As well as the challenges and hardships of urban warfare in a place where armored vehicles could not fit down many of the streets (a problem the Brits encountered as well, if I recall correctly). Is it a positive story? No, but it's not really a negative one either. He counters the NYT's "claims" by noting that three days later, an article in Time paints a different picture.
NYT's story was posted on the first day of fighting, and at that point, it was difficult to say how successful anything was. It is not inaccurate to note that the Basra police (heavily partisan as they are) did not support the incursion by federal troops into their city, or that unrest had broken out elsewhere in response to the operation. Things did stall that night and into the following morning until air strikes and artillery could be called in from the American troops observing the fighting.
So we have early reporting of a battle that talks about the challenges faced by the combatants, about the political atmosphere within which the events are taking place and the difficulties being encountered that were not provided for. At the time of the post, things had in fact bogged down and settled into a short seige pending bombardments from air and artillery, which I gather hadn't been an initial part of the plan. So... how is any of that dishonest?
Lessee, I've covered the NYT story there. Dare I wade into it with the Guardian and the Independent?
Sigh...
British Journalism is a rat's nest, and I hate to involve myself in it, but since he's chaining them to us, I can't ignore them. Let's see... The Independent reported on Maliki changing the deadlines for surrendering arms when the operation didn't turn out to be the immediate success he was apparently hoping for.
He did that again today, by the way, offering Sadr's fighters amnesty if they'll hand over the guns. It won't work, but it's worth a shot, I suppose.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq.html?scp=2&sq=maliki&st=nyt
On the flipside, the flagrant injection of opinion statements into supposedly 'straight news' stories is the kind of crap that makes me pull my hair out when I read the British press. I find ethically dodgy at best if not reprehensible. The Independent's story includes phrases like:
"Fears that Mr Maliki's surprise assault on the Mehdi Army is faltering without any real gains on the ground probably explains why US aircraft are dropping bombs in Basra and US armoured vehicles made an incursion into Sadr City in Baghdad. The explosion of violence over the past four days is making a mockery of George Bush's claim that America had turned the corner in Iraq."
Wow! British journalism standards suck. Please don't compare us.
For the record, though the Independent piece does mention that the Basra mission hadn't been all Maliki had hoped for, it didn't paint a dismal picture, but rather talked about the incongruity of the mortar and rocket attacks on the 'Green Zone' when the rest of Baghdad and the "relative calm that prevailed in Basra".
If there is good journalism happening anywhere in the UK, it's at the Guardian. Sometimes. Mostly.
Back to the 'States... The second Time article alleges that Sadr's people won simply by not being defeated in Basra. That's certainly one view of things and according to interviews I've heard on NPR and elsewhere, a fairly common one on the ground in Iraq. Whether or not this hurts Maliki in the upcoming elections remains to be seen.
I kind of wonder why the Iraqis aren't tired of both of them as much as they are tired of us.
Two AP stories are next. The first is at the Detroit Free Press site amusingly titled "FREEP"
The second "AP Report" isn't. It is - in fact - an editorial. Says so at the top of the page. Which is one reason why I wonder if they bothered to read these stories ere they linked to them.
So... does this make Mssrs Roggio and Gartenstein-Ross shoddy journalists themselves? No. I'd encourage both to take some lessons in reading for content and context, but this is an op/ed. And while I take them to task for errors in their assessment of the Time and NYT stories, they're entitled to their opinions. They're even entitled to post in on the internet.
What I mostly object to is that - in their analysis - the news was reporting defeat early when the stories they link to don't bear up under scrutiny as pushing the agenda they allege. The NYT story was written in the opening days. The Time story written three days later, after the cessation of major hostilities. Comparing the two stories' analysis of the situation is a ludicrous endeavor. They're not analyzing the same situation anymore. Comparing two stories from the same day, which draw different conclusions might have more merit.
The authors of the piece here linked demand that the media take notice of the often slow pace of battles, and how the results one day aren't necessarily the results of the battle, just the results of that day. That's a fair charge.
In a time of war, one day to the next, the story shifts as often as the lines, but as of the filing time of that story, the assault on Basra had apparently stalled and was settling into a siege of the city. The stories makes no mention of Maliki being defeated, only that this was seen in his country as a test of his government and the Iraqi army's ability to fight independent of the Americans. It was, and they couldn't. Since they have a parliamentary system, I would assume there is the danger of a vote of 'no confidence' which would trigger early elections if theirs is similar to other parliamentary democracies with which I am more familiar.
And while I take issue with the authors not knowing the difference between a news report and an editorial, as well as ignoring that the stories filed by reporters on the 25th won't reflect the same situation that reports filed on the 30th, I mostly take issue with the assessment of the reporting in both Time and the New York Times as being equal to the tabloidism rampant in the British Press.
Note that neither the Time nor the NYT article prematurely called the mission a failure. Both reported the larger picture and took due notice of the complexities of urban combat. The assessment, by Time, of Sadr as victor was posted April 1st. Not sure how early that is or how assessing victory can be 'botching' the story.
I would also like to note that neither Time nor the New York Times claims to be infallible. They are often wrong, and the NYT has a history of admitting mistakes when they make them. They did so when they admitted that they had not been fully diligent in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Which doesn't put them in Denny's good graces, I suppose, but it's noteworthy whatever your views. That is to say that they could be wrong. At the moment, they're reporting their impression of what's going on for those of use not close enough to look for ourselves. That's what journalism is.
Whether or not they are right when the assign the victory to Sadr remains to be seen. By my read of Maliki's actions since then I wonder if he doesn't believe it himself.
And... did I mention that British print journalism is largely a joke?
Post a Comment