Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

None, because that contention is never made. A common complaint from Bush, Cheney, and war supporters is that the media overlooks small but positive developments like the rebuilding of schools and restoration of oil pipelines. These stories get the short shrift, the complaint goes, in favor of coverage of deaths and violence. Listen to Bush at his press conferences and you will hear this complaint frequently.

These two stories were indeed covered by the media, and have here been singled out for recognition because they are two significant steps forward in the hopeful ending of the war, not merely small steps toward restoring antebellum Iraq. At no point were they overlooked or ignored, and no such claim is made here. Sorry for any confusion; space limitations force us to cut short many things to which we would like to give more space.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by TigerHawk on March 6, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

For Linguo's benefit, I'll give two specific examples of 'overlooked and ignored' that highlight precisely the problem McKay tackles:

From Brent Bozell's website, this exchange:

My son's friend Todd Jones just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. At a celebratory gathering at his parents' home, we chatted a while, and I asked him what he thought were the biggest problems facing the military. Without hesitating, he shot back: "The terrorists and the media."

And from me, personally: Last fall, I attended a professional conference where I had the privelege of meeting Chief Warrant Officer Mike Durant. For those of you who've seen "Blackhawk Down", you'll recognize the name. Ron Eldard played him in the movie; he's the chopper pilot who was captured and held for two weeks by the Somali warlords. Chief Durant has been to Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq...he's seen it all. He had only a few kind things to say about the way the Bushies have prosecuted this war, and even FEWER kind things to say about the way the Clintons handled Somalia. But when he was done speaking, I asked him, "What about the media? Given the criticism of the media's coverage, do they get anything at all right in Iraq?" Notice that I worded the question in such a way as to give him an opening to say something positive. His response:

"NOTHING. They get NOTHING right. Not a thing"

While the Chief's answer is probably an overstatement, both of these anecdotes reflect a harsh reality - whether YOU agree or not linguo, the guys over there doing the fighting are definitely telling us that media coverage is slanted, negative and flat misleading. THEY believe it's bad. And they're in the best position to know. THEY see with their own eyes the situation, and can read the media accounts. I am constantly reading and hearing from guys who've been there that the media portrayal of Iraq looks NOTHING like their experience. THAT is telling.

You don't have to take my word for it, or my two anecdotes. Pull up Michael Yon's blog reports. He's there with our guys right now, in the Humvees. Better yet, read the blogs of the soldiers who are ACTUALLY there, doing hard work both in combat and away from it. You'll find out it's not just terrifying, it's also boring, exhilerating, life-affirming, surreal and even hopelessly normal. It's more than just IED's and body counts in the headlines.

Read what they have to say. It might open your eyes.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 6, 2007 at 10:11 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

Well, Linguo, if you're going to put a "chop" on my shoulder, make it Pork. It's lunchtime.....

And since you missed the point of my post (again), I'll restate it a slighlty different way: people like yourself who demand 'proof' that good news from Iraq is somehow overlooked or underreported should go to the blogs and stories posted by the soldiers themselves. They'll give you an earful about media bias, if you have the guts to listen to them.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 6, 2007 at 11:54 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

I will take Linguo's claims that he/she meant nothing more than the specifics of the oil sharing agreement at face value, and accept this explanation. But re-reading Linguos' original post, I would still characterize it as terse and demanding - maybe even 'frothing at the mouth'. I don't think I'm alone in that assessment, either. McKay wrote a balanced and thoughtful article, the main point of which was to note that good news from Iraq - or anywhere else, for that matter - doesn't sell as well as bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads", as they say in a newsroom. So, what is Linguo's reaction? To immediately demand "proof" that good news is overlooked, after casting aspersions on McKay that he was wrong - "The Stories were covered!". And I'm the one frothing at the mouth....?

Linguo's intentions notwithstanding, McKay's observations and my humble addendums to them are still spot-on accurate. There is a tendency to overlook good news in our media, in Iraq or anywhere else - just as McKay said. Servicemen in Iraq particularly feel this, and percieve a gross and pervasive anti-war media bias - not exclusively, but yes, overwhelmingly. The media dust-up over the Washington Posts' William Arkin and his reprehensible anti-military comments, in reaction to a Soldier's frustrations in Iraq a few weeks ago was just the latest incarnation of this tension. A quick perusal of well-known military blogs will also demonstrate that McKay is on to something here.

Finally, I would only add that ignored so far in all of this is the last few lines of McKay's article. Yes, regardless of political biases, why can't we all just agree to hope that the progress in Iraq, however underreported or even non-existant, continues? Can't we still, as a country, work toward the goal of leaving Iraq better than we found it, even if perfect is out of the question? I should think so.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 6, 2007 at 4:57 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

Perhaps if the administration had spent more time solving the problems in Iraq, instead of whining about a media bias towards bad news this situation wouldn't have spiraled into the current, seemingly hopeless, debacle of foreign relations.

The reason why the majority of coverage about Iraq is bad...is because the majority of THE NEWS is bad.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dannylandulf on March 6, 2007 at 7:15 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

And who's to say the soldiers don't have any bias, or are incorect in interpreting what they see in Iraq?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on March 6, 2007 at 8:05 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

I'm with Danny. Don't most of the stories seem negative because they are negative? You can rebuild all the schools you like, but a group of American soldiers dying will always be a bigger story. I'm no journalist, but it seems like common sense that the deaths are more important. And can't we just agree that no one person in the world has a completely objective view of anything?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Cardiff_Giant on March 6, 2007 at 8:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

Alright Cardiff and Danny, try this little experiment:

Apply the Iraq War Coverage Standard to the US. According to the FBI, approximately 17,000 US citizens are murdered every year, roughly 46 per day. Therefore, we should see screaming headlines every day that say, "46 more dead in US Violence" or "50 killed as Drug War Casualties Mount". According to the NHTSB, MADD and others, anywhere from 16,000 to 20,000 die in America every year in alcohol-related trafic accidents. Thus, right under the Daily Murder Headline, there should be another daily headline reading, "Americans Kill Another 150 over Weekend". My personal favorite is this little gem, from the CDC: over 1000 children under the age 14 die in accidental drownings every year, mostly in family swimming pools. So, right under the Daily Murder and Daily Drunk Casualty count headline, there's another Daily Baby Toll Headline, "7 More Children Die - Swimming Pool Carnage Continues". Importantly, you should note that 1,000 Americaan kids dying in swimming pools is a larger number than the 800 American Soldiers who die in Iraq annually. That should add some perspective on news coverage, eh?

Note that each of these potential headlines is factual and accurate to the statistics. You can't claim that my mythical Bizgrad newspapers are lying, becasue they're not. But if you were a foreigner with limited knowledge of the true nature of life in America, and THIS is what you read every day, wouldn't you get the impression that the US is a hellhole of violence, anarchy and callous parents ignoring their children?

Are those headlines that I gave you over-the-top? Sure. THAT's THE POINT. You can see clearly that this mythical BizGrad News is using honest and accurate stories while creating a false impression. You know better, when the subject is life in the US. Now, when you realize that you DON'T live in Iraq and you DON'T know anything about life over there unless you've read it in the papers, well.....perhaps McKay's point is clear now.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 7, 2007 at 11:48 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

I can't believe you are a "BizGrad"... your interpretation of numbers is just absurd...

Why don't we just take the homicide rate here in the US and compare it to Iraq... You say that it is 17,000 every year. Let's take that number as true and compare it to Iraq. First of all, let's see what the homicide rate is in the US then. If it is app. 17,000 every year, that means that, by this year's population estimate (something around 301,000,000), the homicide rate is .00564%. That is one homicide for every 17,722 people.

Ok, now that we have that let's move on to Iraq.

By January 2007, 3,021 american soldiers were killed in Iraq, 665 defense contractos, 146 journalists, 129 british soldiers,123 other coalition soldiers and 5,965 iraqi police and soldiers. The hard part is estimating Iraq civilians killed, so just to make the skeptical happy let's take one of the lower estimates, something aroun 70,000.

So...

3,021+665+146+129+123+5,965+70,000 = 80,049

The United States invaded in March 2003. From March 2003 to January 2007 there are 46 months. Averaging it all out there has been something like 20,882 deaths per year since the war started (notice that these figures can be significantly higher).

Ok, but what is Iraq's population? The 2006 estimate is 26,783,383. So the homicide rate in Iraq is something along
.078%. That is: one homicide for every 1,282 people.

That means that the homicide rate in Iraq IS MORE THAN 13 TIMES HIGHER THAN AT THE US.

I don't want to analyze only american soldiers deaths because honestly I don't think I believe that the life of an american soldier is worth more than the life of an iraqi civilian, and perhaps even of some of the insurgents. But if you do want to do that you need to take into consideration the number of soldiers in Iraq, etc.

Numbers alone aren't worth crap, there needs to be a context behind them. Try to look at that context next time, before you understimate the problems in Iraq. Oh, and the deaths are just the start of it... nevermind the lack of infrastructure, the iraqi diaspora and the fact that we (the US) doesn't even support the iraqis that were with us from the start... but hey, it's all politics right? As long as it's in our interest...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on March 7, 2007 at 9:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

Well, I have to thank hawkhawk for bringing a chuckle this early in the morning. Loved the post, really. You've managed to open my eyes and give food for thought, although quite unintentionally.

Of course the murder rate is higher in Iraq than it is in the US. It's also higher in places like Africa, the former Soviet Union, South America, Southeast Asia..most of the world. So what? Mr. Stangler and I have both alluded to it - why else would I point out as I did that it's hard for safe, American-raised kids to understand what life is like overseas?

Let's take your math at face value. If your numbers are accurate, that means that the odds of an average Iraqi citizen being killed violently are appoximately 1 in 1300. As skeptical of the media as I am, and as much as I discount the news from Iraq as slanted to the negative, even I am STUNNED it's that low. And I bet I'm not the only one who noticed that.

If you doubt me, try this experiment. Ask 5 of your friends the following question: "Based only on what you've been reading about the violence and civil war in Iraq, what do you think the odds are for the average Iraqi citizen to be killed by violence there in a given year?" Be honest with it; pick five friends who have Liberal, anti-war politics, and don't let them sit down and do the math first. The whole point is to base their estimate on impressions formed by the media. I bet none of them comes even close to your 1 in 1300 number. I'd be amazed, in fact, if any guessed better than 1 in 100.

In belaboring a moot point, you've actually managed to prove Mr. Stangler's (and my) thesis - that Liberal, anti-war media bias has created an false impression, regardless of how high or low the actual rate is.

oh, and PS: There was an analysis recently that used FBI crime statistics showing the violent death rate in Iraq as a whole was about as bad as living in Detriot, but not as bad as living in Washington DC or New Orleans (pre-Katrina). I'll try to find that for you too, so you can check your math.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 8, 2007 at 8:41 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

If you think that is a low murder rate you really need to review your concepts of a civil society. And remember, that is the low end of the casualty estimates. If people believe that the death rate in Iraq is higher than what it actually is that is probably because they have a difficulty with estimates and etc. You see, that is the problem with numbers, they do not necessarily affect or mean the same thing for different people. I do not know if the method of estimating chance of dying in a given year used by me or yourself is correct, but the idea that the minimal number of children drowning every year is more newsworthy then the chaos in Iraq is preposterous. Iraq is in bad shape, hell, you don't need to just look at the 100 or so people who die every day, just do some research on the iraqi diaspora. or how only about 30% of children are going to school now (during the Saddam regime the number was close to 100%). 1/3 of all iraqi doctors have left. oh, and by the way, casualties keep increasing. whe've screwed up and now we need help (and that means talking with Iran and Syria, apologizing for our unilateral unsanctioned attack and asking for help in the hope that we are able to fix the mess). Like I said before, I am not for leaving Iraq right now, but I do think it's essential to be on the news (and hey, if you don't think so, good for you, go watch Fox News and they'll give you some healthy reporting on the war on easter or their "unsobish" coverage of Anna Nicole Smith - referenced at that great news channel 12 times more than Walter Reed.) The coverage is essential because Iraq could really be a turning point in the US relationship with the world, we could either strenghten international cooperation or isolate ourselves further. The fact that everything seems so overstated in the media is because of the sad state of american media, particularly cable companies. When you have to keep every report to under 2 minutes and expect your guests (who could either be true specialists in the are or the great "commentators or analysts) to provide valuable insight in 30 seconds you can't really expect much and end up sensationalizing everything you have.

Thank god we still have NPR... at least someone gets it...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by hawkhawk on March 8, 2007 at 2:11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

Sorry, folks, I mis-read a few lines from the studies above. Iraq is actually more violent than New York City, but less violent than Detroit, Washington, Gary, IN, New Orleans and East ST Louis, IL. It is also still arguably less violent than Jamaica and Sout Africa.

Now back to your regular programming.....

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 9, 2007 at 1:10 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Positive war news overlooked

I do not need to review my concept of a civil society, hawkhawk, because I have never claimed that Iraqi society is civil. What I HAVE claimed is that Iraqi society is not nearly as chaotic and incivil as the US Media makes it out to be.

For the record, I do not claim that Iraq is a civil society by American standards. In point of fact, however, Iraq society is no more or less civil than much of the rest of the world. Here are statistics I promised you, in support of precisely that statement:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22716 and http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/us-cities-more-violent-than-iraqi.html

You can find similar comparisons in a number of places on the web, but this will do for now. As you can see, The NATION of Iraq is less 'violent' than the cities of New York, Detroit and Washington. It's also less violent the the countries of Jamaica and South Africa. Pretty eye opening, eh? That a "War" can produce fewer casualties than "Peace"? Perhaps that is because your judgement, like the judgement of so many others posting here, has been colored and biased by a slanted press that conitinuously pounds away at the most ugly and negative side of life in Iraq without even a passing mention that so much of that country is actually 'normal', at least by the standards of an equally chaotic third world? I believe that is also precisely the point Mr. Stangler was making in his essay.

You seem to agree that the news media loses its focus and lacks perspective. Even if it's due to Anna Nicole Smith or the latest college student to go missing in Aruba, you'll at least agree with me on this point. Why is it so hard for you then, when the evidence is laid so clearly before you, to believe that our major News organizations have likewise lost perspective on Iraq?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 9, 2007 at 9:41 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal