SeekerBlog

Favorite media commentator Jeff Jarvis noted a Mark Yost editorial which raised
important questions about media coverage of Iraq. Jeff noticed that the managing
editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily has posted an inflammatory
attack on Yost at Romensko. So Jeff offers to host a
reasoned debate between Yost and Lovelady.

The ensuing emails from Lovelady are truly shocking. And
there are a number of similar ad hominem attacks posted at Romensko. For a
glimpse of the media elite showing the extent of their bias (rage?), start
with Mark
Yost’s editorial, then
Jeff’s
post, and follow through at Romensko.
Jeff Jarvis:

There have been a fair number of pixels devoted to the discussion over St.
Paul Pioneer Press editorialist Mark Yost’s criticism of media coverage of
the Iraq war. Yost wrote:

I know the reporting’s bad because I know people in Iraq. A Marine colonel
buddy just finished a stint overseeing the power grid. When’s the last time
you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid? Or the new
desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened,
or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the
dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings
waiting to be blown up.

I also get unfiltered news from Iraq through an e-mail
network of military friends who aren’t so blinded by their own politics that
they can’t see the real good we’re doing there. More important, they can
see beyond their own navel and see the real good we’re doing to promote peace
and prosperity in the world. What makes this all the more ironic is the fact
that the people who are fighting and dying want to stay and the people who
are merely observers want to cut and run….

Instead, we get Monday’s front-page story about a "secret" memo
about "emerging U.S. plans" to withdraw troops next year. Why isn’t
the focus of the story the fact that 14 of 18 Iraqi provinces are stable and
the four that aren’t are primarily home to the genocidal gang of thugs who
terrorized that country for 30 years?

And reporters wonder why they’re despised.

Fair criticism, I’d think.
But over in Romensko’s letters, Steve Lovelady seethes:

Amazing. Mark Yost, an [editorial page] editor at Knight Ridder, the ONE news
outlet which has consistently exposed the lies at the heart of the Iraq invasion
and the grim reality of the current occupation, turns on his colleagues.
I can’t wait to see how the KR Washington bureau and the KR Iraq
contingent reponds to this one!

There he is, guys. Go get him. You owe your readers no less.

What is amazing about this is that Lovelady is the managing editor of the
friggin’ Columbia Journalism Review Daily. You’d think that he would welcome
intelligent, reasoned, two-sided discussion about media’s coverage of this
controverial story. Instead, he acts like the fat kid on the playground egging
on the bullies in a fight.

And we certainly know where the Columbia Journalism
Review stands on war coverage, don’t we now?

But I’d like to see a real discussion on this. So I’ll egg on a fight, but
one fought without eggs: I would love to see a debate between Yost and Lovelady.
I just emailed them both:

I just emailed them both:

Gentlemen:
How about engaging in a debate on Iraq war coverage in American media?

Steve Lovelady: I found your snipe at Romenesko to be, well, unsatisfying.
It did not address the issues raised by Mark Yost.

Mark Yost: I would like to see you engage Steve and those who believe as
he does.

So how about a debate, sirs? I suggest an email debate. I’ll be happy to
post your responses on Buzzmachine.

First question, if you are willing:

Is American media coverage of the Iraq war balanced? Or do American media
harbor an agenda in its coverage — and if so, what agenda? Do American news
media succeed — or even try — to present the positive and the negative
news coming out of Iraq? Is there an obligation to be balanced? Or do you
believe that balance would present an inaccurate picture of the news there?

Be sure to read the Buzzmachine comments, which, aside from a couple of tiresome
trolls, include several thoughtful comments. E.g., from reader Karl Bade (referencing
a Romensko comment and some other Jarvis commenters):

What people like james refuse to acknowledge — and I would include the KR
Baghdad bureau chief in this as well — is that there are already many people
blogging and e-mailing from Iraq, just as Yost wrote. And their reports stand
in stark contrast to the tone you get from KR and other outlets. As Yost notes,
it’s not all cheerleading (as Ollie falsely suggests), nor is it the doom and
gloom of the major media. If Yost’s critics would put a check on their bias
long enough to visit the numerous milblogs online, they would quickly discover
that the soldiers’ accounts of events often differ greatly from the major media
account of the same event.

To be fair, I will concede at the outset that folks involved in the mission
in Iraq will have their own biases that they bring to their blogs, e-mails,
etc. Yost’s critics, however, seem oblivious to the possibility that the boots
on the ground might have more expertise in evaluating their circumstances.
Indeed, recent polling showing that people rate the military as much more trustworthy
than the media should be a wake-up call to Yost’s critics (as should declining
newspaper circulation).

Franky asks: "Isn’t the general pattern that the vast majority of people
over in Iraq tell how terrible it is, but the massive majority of people
who criticise coverage have never been there, instead relying on second-hand
accounts?"

Given public opinion polling showing two-thirds of Iraqis think Iraq is
moving in the right dorection, I would say the answer to that question is, "No," though
the fact that Franky seems to assume the answer is "Yes" tends
to prove Yost’s point about the negative skew of the coverage. Ruth attempts
to address that issue by noting that the press doesn’t report on planes that
land safely. I would say that if Iraq is as bad off as the major media reports
it to be, planes landing safely would qualify as news.

And this sane comment from reader John:

If you’re writing or editing for an advocacy newspaper or magazine, such as
the Village Voice, The Nation or even publications on the right like National
Review or the American Spectator, then toeing the company’s editorial line
is understandable. Those publication have a point of view, and while there
are variations within, people don’t come to those places or their websites
to hear contrarian points of view.

However, the point of view Lovelady laid out in his intial post on Romenesko’s
site and in his follow-up e-mails to Jeff is distrubing, especially for someone
working for a media critique magazine like the Columbia Journalism Review.
The idea that Knight Ridder — which is primarily in the business of publishing
newspapers for a mainstream audience in a country split evenly between Democrats
and Republicans — should broker no contrarian thoughts within its chain
of newspapers is disturbing enough of a "thought police" image, but
the idea that Yost should be thrown out on the street based on the lack of
support in Romanesko’s letters column comes across as some type of bizarre
McCarthyism of the left. It’s as if Lovelady wants Yost dragged in front of
some journalistic inquisition and grilled on the question of "Are you
or have you ever been a Republican?" before being blacklisted out of
the industry.

If CJR and Lovelady want to conduct media criticism and review from a left-liberal
perspective, it’s perfectly within their right to do so. But screeds like his
against someone who questions overall media coverage on the Iraq war sets both
Lovelady and his magazine up for scrutiny of their own due to their overt political
biases. They can continue to portray themselves as a non-partisan press critique
site, but stuff like this comes from the Brent Bozell/David Brock school of
journalism review.

And also this excellent comment, also from reader Karl Bade:

I’ve never set
foot in Iraq, but this
military medic says the Iraqi Army has made strides in the 9 months
he has been there, adding that last Saturday in Quyarrah, over a thousand
citizens and police held the first “march against terrorism,” led by sheiks,
mukhtars, and imams.

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but Ma Deuce Gunner is
there, writing that: “There are hundreds of things that are better in this
country… There are hundreds of things that need work. These things take
TIME. These things take EFFORT. To this effort we must continue to add RESOLVE
and PATIENCE. In the grand scheme of things, the two years that have passed
since the end of ‘major’ hostilities, in all reality, is a very short time
to reestablish a nation.”

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but Hurl is there now. He has some unkind words about the media coverage of Iraq. As I type this, his most recent post states
in part: “The involvement of Iraqi army and police has increased significantly
over the past few months. I have also read many reports about the lack of
electricity, but from my observations there are lights on all over Iraq as
far as I can see. Any power outages are due to terrorist activity, not a
lack of infrastructure. Two nights ago I flew over a new powerplant under
construction….”

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but SPC Alex Barnes is
there, writing that: “This is our war to lose, and war opponents (I’m hesitant
to use the term ‘liberal’ because it just doesn’t seem to fit the bill) are
doing their best to lose it in the only way possible: on the battlefield
of the media and public opinion.”

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but Massachusetts Army National Guard soldiers living at FOB Summerall are blogging, even photoblogging. The most recent post as
I type this states in part: “It’s amazing how much the Iraqi Army and Iraqi
Police have accomplished thus far. These guys are just as much hero’s as
we are. They are why we’re here. These guys will eventually take over for
us. More and more often the Iraqi Security Forces are being targeted and
under the same pressures that we’re under, but without nearly the level of
international recognition that they deserve.”

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but Noah Shachtman just
arrived in Camp Victory: “Who knew being a vegetarian in a war zone could
be this easy? Not that I’m exactly in in the thick of battle, yet. Camp Victory,
adjacent to the Baghdad Airport, is a sprawling military command center of
15,000 troops. And, despite the occasional helicopter grunting overhead,
the conflict feels very far away. Yesterday, I was worried about facing bullets
and bombs. Today, I’m wondering whether to have a slushie or a cookie for
desert.”

I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but Michael Yon just finished a tour from Mosul to Baghdad to a Navy ship in the North Arabian Gulf, back to Kuwait and Baghdad, to other places in the region and then to Kalsu. Some reports have been downbeat, others uplifting.

It took me about half an hour to find these seven examples. There are many, many more where they came from.

Thus, while I respect the courage of those major media journos to risk life and limb in Iraq, I do not grant them a monopoly of knowledge of the situation in Iraq. I’ve never set foot in Iraq, but I think that Steve Lovelady or the KR Baghdad bureau would be hard put to claim that the FOB troops I’ve quoted above are somehow blinded to the reality of Iraq. Heaping invective on Yost does not refute his central point, which is that there are many people reporting from Iraq other than the major media and they not only paint a different picture than the major media, they often criticize the coverage of the major media.

The Loveladys of the world can ignore them and continue to scratch their
heads as newspaper circulation and network news ratings continue their erosion
into oblivion. Or they can realize that their journo skills might be put
to good use by reading and weighing (note I am not saying “and uncritically accepting”)
this substantial body of reportage and opinion from people in Iraq. Thus
stated, I would suggest that the argument is about more than Iraq — it’s
another version of an ongoing theme of Jeff’s blog, i.e., that there is a segment of the major media that is implacably hostile to anything that is seen as challenging their now-broken monoply on reportage and public commentary.