The fact that Iraq is a violent place is being used by the press as blanket defense for every aspect of their coverage. Essentially they make two arguments: it's so violent that many reporters have died, so if there are any problems, it's because it's so hard to cover well -- whatever we can do, we do -- and there's so much violence, how can you possibly be thinking at this point it matters if we cover the opening of another school or hospital?
The problem with the first argument, of course, is that it reflects the perpetual refusal of the press to consider that there may be so many dead reporters in Iraq not as a reflection of the overall security situation, but as a reflection of a conscious strategy targeting them. This is an enemy that above all else is calculating and strategic, but the press simply refuses to think about them -- at least in their reporting -- as if either of those things might be true.
The problem with the second argument is that it purposely oversimplifies every critique of the press coverage and collapses it into the straw man of "report more school openings." Here's a perfect example of the form.
Here's the first argument:
They also have to worry constantly about getting shot, blown up, or taken hostage themselves whenever they leave their compounds.
And here's the second:
No matter how many upbeat stories one might hear about better electricity or rebuilt schools in Iraq, it's never going to balance out the horror of violence. And it shouldn't. To talk about press bias in response to questions about violence suggests an equivalence between dead soldiers and new hospitals. An increase in the number of positive stories is not going to rebuild support for Bush's policies.
But there are all kinds of good news stories, and not all of them are ribbon cuttings at schools. It has never been the case that responsible critics of the press have argued that the violence was not newsworthy. What has been argued is that other stories were newsworthy also -- for example, the fact that the new constitution was ratified should not have been stuffed inside every major paper on the day the 2,000th casualty was the front page story in every major paper. Those stories deserved to be side by side.
Tone matters, as well. Since the mosque in Samarra there has just been a tone of futility in the coverage.
(In the first version of this story that I saw, this was a single sentence, and it opened the story):
Thursday's rescue, by a force that included American and British troops, represented one of the few times that military action in Iraq has played a decisive role in a hostage release.
But within hours, a surge of four car bombings, including a suicide attack, struck Baghdad, killing at least 23 people, wounding at least 48 and tempering the military's euphoria from the morning's success.
Even successes are written up as momentary, fleeting, ultimately meaningless in the cauldron of violence that is Iraq.
Is there violence? Yes. Should it be covered? Yes. Are the reporters working under undoubtedly difficult circumstances? Of course.
But none of those facts means that the coverage is above criticism. And, by the way, yes, it is the case that the violence is being stage managed for the press' benefit. Apparently saying so is for some reason to be branded some kind of ideologue, but that is what terrorism is. The whole point of the violence is to garner press coverage, and it is a fundamental failure of the press in Iraq that they have either not figured that out, or believe that to be a somehow inappropriate topic for conversation. It should be central to their coverage.
