Violence, Violence, Violence

I have less patience with the Times' round-up of Iraq events than the Post's for this reason. It's one thing to say that the violence is newsworthy while reconstruction isn't, but not only are the political developments ignored here, but the violence, since they try to list all of it, is utterly decontextualized. Now, for sure, that speaks to the amount of violence in the country, but what that means is we get nothing more than a few sentences per event, which isn't enough to understand, really, any of it. Bombing, shooting, shooting, kidnapping.

It's like the old game of repeating a word over and over until it ceases to have meaning and starts to just be a sound. Event, event, event, event.

So what? Where's the information that helps us understand what any of it means?

We could surely do the same with the police blotter from any American city.

Would that mean that that city was living under the same kind of conditions as Iraq?

Of course not. That's my point. When you offer a series of detached events, they cease to have particular meaning. They just float there, with no special meaning beyond, "Iraq is a very violent place."

Thanks. We got that already.

Comments

[Mark Mulqueen]

Hmm, repeating it over and over, yeah, I get it, lets try this: weapons of mass destruction, Wmd,wmd,wmd.... you're right it works!

[esmense]

Do you really want the "mainstream" media to emphasize the story of reconstruction in Iraq? A story, on the macro level, of administrative incompetence, carelessness, a devastating failure to protect vital cultural and physical infra-sturcture, bribery, missing billions, missed opportunities, outlandish war profiteering and now, most recently, the administration's formal announcement that it will not (because we cannot afford to) devote more spending to the reconstruction effort?

As a conservative supporter of the administration, you should be grateful that for the most part the media has been unwilling to risk the administration's displeasure with an examination of these issues, or, just doesn't care much about such things. And, even if they do care, are too hamstrung by the lack of security in Iraq at large to go out and report on them.

On the micro level are there good news stories to report? About schools restored, babies saved, etc.? Sure. And both the network and cable news often feature heart-warming personal stories about the good our soldiers are doing, or trying to do, over there -- on a people to people level.

But these are small successes in a bigger context of failure and inadequacy -- successes that, while important on a person to person, are woefully inadequate to insure the all-important goal of gaining the nationwide, popularly felt confidence and support of the Iraqi people. They are flickers of light and competence in a sea of incompetent judgements on the part of the people charged with the major planning and administion of the Iraq occupation.

On the political level is there progress being made? Yes. Is it being covered by the media? Of course it is. But that coverage can't change the reality that it is much too soon to tell if recent political benchmarks mark real and lasting change in Iraq's political culture or are just ephermeral political window dressing. Window dressing that -- like all the similarly much touted democratic progress in Vietnam 30 years ago -- will dry up and blow away once we turn our attention to other things.

What you really want, I think, is for the media to ignore the violence and deaths in Iraq. To pretend that -- like you and your intimates, perhaps? -- no Americans are paying a serious price there.

But that would dishonor those Americans who ARE paying a price.

And no disagreement among the rest of us about whether that price is worth it or not, should allow us to dishonor them by ignoring and hiding away, or failing to acknowledge, the darker side of the reality they live with every day.

[anonymous]

I guess the author hasn't heard W's announcement that there's no more reconstruction.

[Marlin]

I share the frustration with the NYT's reporting expressed in this post. I'm not looking for the NYT to only report good news, but a balance would be nice. When I read Bill Roggio's post for today (link below) I just have to wonder why the NYT hasn't by now made some effort to provide this same kind of meaningful context to its readers as Bill does on a daily basis.

Counterinsurgency Operations in Anbar

[dauber]

I am sick and tired of being labelled "conservative" because I support the war by people who know absolutely nothing about any other position I take. And I am also sick and tired of having people say that because I want more robust reporting, what I obviously want is less reporting on the security situation, when I fairly regularly write that that is explicitly NOT what I want. I get tired of linking to Jay Rosen's piece that the war reporting isn't necessarily too much about bad news but that it is too narrow, but apparently if I don't do it every single time I make an argument like this like a damn shield, someone will come along and announce that all I want is good news and propaganda. I'm a grown up, and if the reconstruction news includes bad news, I can take it, but at least I'll be getting some context. The problem I have is that alternative sources simply do not match up to the gloom and doom you suggest. But do not, for one moment, suggest to me that I am dishonoring the fallen or that I am working to hide or forget their sacrifice. That you have no right to do, and I am also sick to death of people who disagree with the war effort implying that that gives them some superior stance when it comes to their grief. I have NEVER suggested, not would I, that we should short the reporting on the security situation.

[AndyS]

But the facts here are really simple.

* Iraq's GNP is lower than it was immediately before our attack.
* Iraq pumps less oil than it did immediately before our attack.
* Iraq produces less electricity than it did immediately before our attack.

There are many more factoids of this ilk, that all add up to a simple conclusion -- the "reconstruction" is hardly a success!

What you're asking for -- feel-good stories about micro-level events within the reconstruction effort -- would amount to nothing more than free political advertising.

[Media Hound]

AndyS, your stats somehow managed to omit the 300,000 people Saddam put into mass graves across that country, as well as Saddam's DECADE of non-compliance with his disarmament obligations:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

In 1991, Saddam had 15 DAYS to comply with his disarmament obligations, NOT 15 years.

As for the NY Times, they've sunk so low into DNC shill mode, that I would suggest Cori create a "Media Bias" course using nothing but the daily NY Times as source material.

[Jason Van Steenwyk]

Heh. You actually believe the prewar Iraq GNP figures?

Yeah. Iraq was a model of truthful business reporting.

And having believed in their prewar figures, you actually believe that the billions and billions in oil revenues looted by Saddam and his close associates ought to receive the same weight in GNP figures as every other dollar?

Of the prewar oil revenue, how much of that actually accrued to the benefit of Iraq's people, as opposed to the maintenance of an army and security service which murdered them by the thousands?

Of the post war oil revenue, how much of that will actually accrue to the benefit of Iraq's people? Particularly, how much of that benefit will accrue to Iraq's Shia majority, compared to prior to the war? To Kurds?

The real difference to the Iraqi people is night and day. Your reading of the economic data is beyond naive.

[Robert]

May the people of Iraq finally live in a democracy.

And may THEY decide to sell their oil to China.