Centerfield

Abe Rosenthal, former executive editor of the New York Times, calls the media coverage "truly embarrasing." Accepting the premise that "bad news" is more newsworthy, mass graves are "bad news," Nick Berg's murder was "bad news," and sarin gas and mustard gas use was "bad news." I have always thought that the "liberal bias" claims by conservatives are greatly exaggerated, but in this case I am starting to rethink that conclusion.

It's not "liberal bias" so much as it is easier to report bad news than good news and it makes a better story. Bad news makes great pictures and that is what the media really lives on. During the Clinton years, you saw plenty of "bad news" stories as well. Newspapers (and media in general) are essentially story tellers that rely on anecdotes. Anecdotes are more interesting if they are spectacular and bad news anecdotes are the most spectacular of all. The problem is that, if you read only newspapers and watch TV you will get a distorted view of any issue, not so much because of bias, but because of the difficulty of covering something in depth. Ideology probably plays a role because reporters, like anyone else, bring their own perspective to how they see an event and are often incapable of stepping back and recognizing this. But I think a greater problem is that most reporters are "action" types and not really thinkers. (This also goes to the issue of ideological bias because action types tend to be less introspective and less aware of their own biases.) Although there is obviously "news analysis" in the media, this often tends to be rather shallow. Anyone that has had news coverage of something they know about (as I have) knows that news coverage is frequently shallow and misleading.

What news media is good at is covering action events, such as disasters. It is horribly bad at covering complex issues that don't lend themselves to easily-told stories. The best example of this is "60 Minutes" which, to my mind, is one of the most overrated news shows on TV. The 60 Minutes brand of "gotcha" journalism just is not suited to telling a complicated story. Yet it gets good ratings because it tells stories and takes sides. This is not necessarily liberal or conservative bias, but it's an attitude of whatever it takes to put together a story.

In my opinion, the only way to really understand an event is to seek out different sources--not so much ideologically different, but with greater expertise in a given area. For example, I read a number of foreign affairs publications that give a much more indepth view of events than you can get from a newspaper or TV.

Having said that, I don't think you can simply write off the "bad news" from Iraq simply as a matter of poor (or biased) journalism. There are serious problems there and I don't think you can simply bury your head in the sand and blame the media for it.

Somehow this situation calls to mind the story of two men building a house -- one built on a rock, another on sand. When the one on sand begins to fall, it's not the fault of those who call attention to it. It was flawed to start with.

I do agree that much news the media chooses to report is because of its power to draw viewers rather than to keep the public well-informed.

Frankly, I think it was the wave-the-flag, beat-the-drum media frenzy in the buildup to the war that was a dis-service to the public. If the public had been more aware of the facts then, this effort might not have been built on sand.

At this point, I'm starting to suffer iraqi prison scandal fatigue. I do think there are still questions that need to be answered, but I think it has become too dominant in the news.

As a consumer of news, I feel neglected on stories that should really be pursued more. I think the Jordan Chemical attack still lacks a lot of information, as does the Sarin gas canister that was found in an IED. In the long run, if these stories move in the wrong direction, they are going to have a much bigger impact on the US.

The media love a good conspiracy story and coupled with an election horse race, it's hard for them to focus on anything but the prison scandal.

Kondracke's article is crap. He's ready to call the whole Iraq situation a "self-inflicted defeat" as if the media and chattering classes are responsible for the fact we have not achieved a basic level of security for the Iraqi people.

Let's take just one measure of security: assassinations of members of the Governing Council. Anybody want to debate how many assassinations are a fair number?

I still think this Iraq adventure will turn out for the better. But it's not the media fault that we were wrong about WMDs. And it's not the media's fault that we handing over to sovereignty in 6 weeks but don't know to whom.

There's a basic point there that's important. Namely, that winning in Iraq is critical to America, and that we probably should be willing to risk a great deal to make this work. Defeatism is decidedly bad for us right now.

I think, however, that Mort's point lacks subtlety. Whether or not we succumb to defeatism isn't determined by press reports or the bad news coming out of Iraq. It's determined by whether we're willing to endure bad news. Whether we understand the level of sacrifice required and do it willingly.

We bore that sacrifice in Vietnam for years before turning against the war. Maybe the mistake was made by those who expected America to fight a 10 year war -- instead of finding the strategy that could conclude the war, say, in year 5.

It's also clear to me that the administration has genuinely performed poorly in the post-combat phase. Nobody's going to excuse Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz for their pre-war fantasies and the lack of preparation that sort of thinking led them to. Nor should we excuse them. They're public servants with critical responsibilities.

Finally, I think his reading of the facts about Bush is wrong. He is not as resolute as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. He made some very dubious (and seemingly politically motivated) decisions back in November -- during the period we received our first sizeable casualties in Iraq.

That's when we announced both a plan for drawing down troops and handing over sovereignty. This was interpreted -- possibly correctly -- as an unwillingness to stay the course and sacrifice to meet our goals in Iraq.

My personal opinion is that there's something like a "Nixon in China" phenomenon going on, with regards to Bush. People assume that Republicans are tough in the realm of foreign affairs. Bush can therefore be less tough and still get credit for toughness.

Similarly, Nixon could open up to China without seeming to appease communism.

In one of the Star Trek movies, didn't Spock say something like "old earth proverb: only Nixon can go to China"?

There's a big part in the middle of the Kondrake that I agree with completely, the part about how important winning is, how high the stakes are, how catastophic failure would be.

But I think the part about blaming the media is mostly nonsense. The media is what it is, and will keep doing what it does: presenting fragmented, decontextualized sensationalistic accounts that rely on visceral emotional audience response whenever possible.

We need to get over that. Does the media do a very poor job of giving a big picture that contextualizes the lurid details they constantly choose to emphasis. Yup. They sure do. They don't even try, really. But you know what? Oh well. It's not going to change. The bad things the media are reporting happened, and they aren't the media's fault. I find the carping that sets up the media as the potential fall guy if we fail to be absurd.

If the media reporting is a problem, then our leaders need to get out there in the public and lead. They need to talk to us, and help us remain focus. They need to tell us repeatedly and at length what is at stake and what we need to do to sacrifice to make sure we succeed. (BTW, as Kondrake notes, McCain and Lieberman are doing this. Kerry and Bush really aren't.) Truly, is there ANY excuse for Bush not giving a weekly address these days?

The people blaming the media need to quit whining and keep their eyes on the ball.

Doesn't Bush give a weekly radio address?

Mort's point is that we are getting coverage so skewed from Iraq that the public does not hear any of the good news and therefore thinks things overthere are much worse that they are.

What is clear to me is that we have to hand the power over to the Iraqi's soon and let then start becoming responsible for failure or success.

Did anyone really think that after a year of military occupation by a Western nation of a Muslim nation, that the military force would be perceived as anything but an occupier?

What is clear to me is that we have to hand the power over to the Iraqi's soon and let then start becoming responsible for failure or success.

Absolutely no question--and we've done that in Fallujah and Karbala. But that won't mean we're going to take all our troops and toys and go home. While I expect a major drawdown, one of the whole points of going to Iraq (though you may never hear anyone admit it) is to get a useful base between Syria and Iran, one not subject to the restrictive whims of the Saudis.

We're going to be there a long time, just not in the present numbers.