Seeker Blog

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.