Media in Iraq: Cowardice or Cheapness

In response to the supporters’ charge of bias in the media coverage of the war in Iraq, some in the mainstream press raise the defense of the courage of reporters in the war zone. There are many courageous reporters. A more central problem, however, is the cheapness of the media in devoting resources to the war.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius writes today of “Courage in Coverage.”

They are taking huge personal risks to bring back the news – not “good news,” as some supporters of the administration often seem to want, but the news.

Ignatius points out that most of the reporting resources are Iraqi:

Western journalists in Baghdad depend increasingly on our Iraqi colleagues, who are some of the bravest reporters in the world.

I emailed Ignatius, and he responded:

KESLER: There were 692 embeds during the invasion, compared to several dozen now. Analysts of media have observed that severe economies are being taken, reducing news reporters and reporting, while media management earns large profit margins milking the cash-cow. What is your observation or opinion regarding more, not less, U.S. journalists needed in Iraq? By having more, would there be more depth, beyond dramatic bombings? With NVA Colonel Anh in mind, and PA-aligned stringers for AFP, are we over-relying on Iraqi stringers? Thank you, in advance, for your response. (I may prepare an article about this.)

IGNATIUS: More correspondents might produce more in-depth coverage, but in the
current situation I'm not sure. It's just too dangerous, too hard to move.
Thanks for writing.
David Ignatius

I take Ignatius’ response to center around, as he did in his Washington Post column, on the dangers to journalists as responsive to my questions.

Ignatius, as many in the media coverage debate do, misses another central point, that the U.S. media is covering the war on the cheap. With only a relatively few U.S. reporters on the ground, not to mention out with the troops, the focus is grabbed by dramatic bombings, often staged for their attention, to the neglect of the “good news” boring as it is of peaceful patrols, reconstruction and gratitude in the 15 provinces outside the three surrounding Baghdad.

Ironically, much of the media repeat the charge that the U.S. sent too few troops to stabilize the country, yet devotes meager resources themselves to the war. In this California-size and populated country, there are fewer reporters applied than to all the beats of a single mid-size city in the U.S.

You probably didn’t see the recent worldwide BBC survey, “Tell me if you think they are getting much better, a little better, a little worse or much worse…you and your family’s economic conditions?” Sixty-five percent of Iraqi’s answered better. That stands against 56% of Americans! Similarly, 56% of Iraqis answered “better’ for their country, versus 39% of Americans.

You probably didn’t see much other “good news”, such as this summary from the Multinational Force – Iraq Commanding General George Casey.

This article discusses mainstream journalists “arguing that the security situation is the dominant story and that it is too dangerous for them to get out and do more reporting on the lives of the Iraqi people.” As the author says, “Some of them just don’t add up,” and proceeds to cite more optimistic news from other journalists and bloggers there.

Sig Christenson is the military-affairs reporter for the San Antonio Express-News, and founder-president of the Military Reporters and Editors organization. He’s served in Iraq three times. Christenson says,

I’ve heard stories about reporters refusing to go, and papers having trouble finding them. I guess I travel in the wrong circles, because all the people I know say, “Well, yeah, if it’s time, I’m going.” And if my boss came up to me and said, “We want to go back. Are you ready?” I would say, “Well, yeah. I’m nervous, but I’ll go.”

In my interview by me of Joe Galloway,(here and here) military editor for Knight Ridder newspapers, and outspoken opponent of America in Iraq, he told me he was safer among the troops out in the field than walking around Baghdad.

So, why hasn’t the U.S. media been investing the resources needed to adequately cover the whole story in Iraq? Cheapness. It costs upwards of $30-thousand a month, above wages, to keep an American reporter in the field in Iraq.

As a recent analysis of media economics points out:

[N]ewspapers remain a surprisingly robust business and generate tremendous amounts of cash every year….[N]ewspaper chains have become relentless in their pursuit of cost-cutting. Although much of this has been bad for the art of journalism, it has been very good for the bottom line.

Turning responsibility for what the American people hear to inexpensive Iraqi stringers is simply grossly irresponsible. Galloway tells me that many aspire to be good journalists, and many are undoubtedly brave. However, we just don’t know their loyalties in too many cases. (See, for example, this.)

If I were more of a Marxist, I would see a media capitalist conspiracy!

(BTW: I have an excellent op-ed prepared going into much more depth and revelation on this subject. Any help getting it placed in MSM would reduce my Marxist suspicions.)