Bill at INDC Journal takes me to task for this statement:
Pretending that this would not be an issue if only the media had covered more school openings or spent more time talking about the free chapstick, toothbrushes, and playing cards our soldiers will get is simply idiotic. Sure, I would like more positive news coverage out of Iraq. I would also like more positive news.
Bill states:
Presumably, John’s been so busy channeling outrage at wingnut hijinks that he’s just too darn busy to read Chrenkoff’s massive good news updates.
Well, no. I read Chrenkoff, and I link to him when I see fit, although probably not frequently enough. Bill continues:
That’s like defending a police force that arrests murderers, while failing to mention that they let every single other class of criminal roam free.
Well, if all the media reported was casualties, that would be true- but the media reports all sorts of good news. In fact, the very summary of good news by Arthur Chrenkoff is little more than a culmination of, you guessed it- media reports. Featured in Arthur’s summary are links to the Wapo, the Ap, The Times Online, the BBC, Xinhuanet, the CS Monitor, Kurdish Media, Reuters, MSNBC, the Washington Times, the LA Times, and hundreds of other media outlets.
Bill is right- deaths and disaster are featured more prominently, but that is not because of an anti-military bias or because of a desire by those in the media that our Iraqi efforts fail. It is simply the nature of what is newsworthy.
Look at your local news- when a car catches fire in downtown Morgantown during rush hour, it makes front page news. At the same time, you will not find any stories about the 40,000 other cars that didn’t catch fire. When Bill Clinton was immersed in an affair with an intern, the media didn’t report on the hundreds of other interns Clinton didn’t diddle. When the BTK killer was caught, the media didn’t focus on the other 300 million people in the country who aren’t serial killers.
Why? Is it because of an anti-car bias? An anti-intern bias? An anti-people bias? Of course not- it is because one event is news, the other is not.
Arthur does a great job summarizing reports of what we are supposed to be doing- the reasons we are there. But that doesn’t mean it is inappropriate or wrong for the media to cover the deaths and injuries our soldiers are suffering. A better measure of what we need to do to make the situation better will come from a close examination of our failures, rather than cheerleading our successes.
Bill is right, though- both need to be mentioned, and, for the most part, they are. And the media is, in my estimation, lazy, and it is easier to report death and destruction than it is to report the good news. Perhaps if the security situation were better, we would have more good news. More likely, if things were going well, we wouldn’t have much news at all- you don’t read too often about reconstruction efforts in Japan and Germany anymore, do you?
Perhaps a better way of stating what I really want is not more positive news, but less bad news.
*** Update ***
Bill responds, and, quite honestly, I am too lazy to respond right now. Sun, grill, beer are on the agenda. We will have to revisit this tomorrow or Tuesday (Monday being reserved for jingoistic displays of unfettered nationalism, including hot dogs, beer, flags, and pretty shit blowing up). A short response- Bill thinks the media dwells too much on the bad stuff, something I would tend to not disagree with but something I wouldn’t wholly endorse. I think the media has a different sense of what is newsworthy (which may explain why they are losing customers), and that if the area were more secure, we would see fewer stories about death and destruction and more of the good news that is going on. Now, on to grill.