There are at least two narratives of importance on the war in Iraq. One tale has to do with blame-laying, fault finding and political advantage. The other has to do with America at war and the consequences of failure. One of these tales is being told by the media, while the other is being pretty much ignored.
UPI’s Pentagon reporter Pamela Hess captures the coverage gap nicely here.
It’s so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It’s on the cover of “The New York Times” today, what this means for the ’08 election. But we’re not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you’re carrying Bush’s water. There are national security questions at stake, and we’re ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.
She’s right of course – Bush may have started this war, but the country is fighting it. He’ll be gone from office in less than two years, and the 2008 election will doubtless turn on where we are in Iraq as much as anything else. If a free press intends to live up to their responsibility to a free citizenry, they have a responsibility to open their field of view a bit, and inform the public.
With the exception of the blogs, I have not seen a single story on the strategic import of the conflict. One wonders what the 500 – 1000 person frame used in most “national” polls would make of the conduct of the war if they knew the stakes?
Damn, Master Chief, you hit the nail right on its pointy little head.
Now if only more of our “professional” media folks could do the same thing…
Good point, Lex, the media does have a responsibility to illuminate more than the “career making/breaking” implications of the war. I think the 60 Minutes section with Bush this evening was interesting because from my perspective, the interviewer was trying to get the CIC to admit all the wrong things he’s done and is doing in this conflict; Bush looked like he was trying to be diplomatic and unspecific about his answers so that he couldn’t be locked down in a verbal loophole. Ex: “Well sir, you just said THIS, so does that mean you really did THAT?”
I’m convinced that at this point, the president seems unable to articulate a clear strategy because doing so could potentially give his opponents and detractors a proverbial leg to stand on in the seemingly biased media. This makes him sound wishy washy and unrealistic “Victory should be our only goal….we can’t leave until the job is done.” Well honestly, despite having been to MANY a Forrestal lecture that discussed this war and being a daily reader of your site (as well as my Mother’s son, subject to the frequent politically charged phone call), I can’t even guess what “victory” means for the United States. It’s kind of difficult to jump on board with the Pres. without a destination stamped on your ticket. Is it possible that we will be there indefinately fighting the “flavor of the week” bad guy? Hope not.
~Ens Tim
Tim-
re- “I can?
Tim-
re- “I can’t even guess what “victory” means for the United States.”
I can’t either and I’m 30+ years older than you. Nearest I can figure Tim this has been going on since Korea. Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War just carried the malaise further. No victorious and clear cut endstate. Reagan was the only one who won a clear victory in the Cold War.
Yep. I think ole Truman set a standard o’sorts with a political stalemate.
And as a result you can see the fallout- North Korea. Same with #41 and Saddam. All chickens come home to roost.
Lastly, re ““flavor of the week”. Looks like it for the forseeable future. Why? 9-11 changed the variables and WMD, readily available, make it so. Pay now or pay later.
You will have an interesting career ahead of you.
b2
Lex, you said “…they have a responsibility to open their field of view a bit, and inform the public.”
But that’s what they do now, at least in their minds. They ARE educating and informing the public, based on their own agenda. If the Dems end up winning the CIC job in 2008, it will be interesting to see if the MSM continues with it’s current agenda, or if they decide that the Dems don’t have it either, and propose that the MSM run the country in the future.
Oops – they think they do now, right?
Ens Tim and Badbob
Take a shot at describing victory in a non traditional war such that it would fit the current news format. Since, in previous wars, victory meant the surrender of the other side, I don’t think victory in the GWOT can be described quickly. Someone take a shot at it.
Kris:
I don’t see where there is pressure coming from to make the MSM change. I have been working like hell trying to expose the people around me to new info (blogs) but 99% still want to be spoon fed and see the effort to get informed news to be too much trouble. This leads to another point;
If people consider it too much trouble to get accurate news about a war their country is in what does that tell you about where the war is in their priorities? It’s not their fault – we are getting our asses roundly kicked in Information Warfare and I don’t see any effort to build a strong effort. Damn this sounds depressing.
“Victory,” and the concept of it, is simply another word in our lexicon that will need to change with the times. “Gay” doesn’t mean what it used to, for example, and neither does “War.” Take the so-called “War on Drugs.” What defines victory in the War on Drugs? Nothing. Yet, we keep “fighting” that war. When will it end, and who will be present at the surrender ceremony? No one knows, because it is by its very nature not knowable.
For journalists, debating semantics is easy, fun, and almost completely pointless. I say “almost” because I do think there would be value in agreeing what we should call our enemies, but we can’t even get agreement on that.
I?
“Victory,” and the concept of it, is simply another word in our lexicon that will need to change with the times. “Gay” doesn’t mean what it used to, for example, and neither does “War.” Take the so-called “War on Drugs.” What defines victory in the War on Drugs? Nothing. Yet, we keep “fighting” that war. When will it end, and who will be present at the surrender ceremony? No one knows, because it is by its very nature not knowable.
For journalists, debating semantics is easy, fun, and almost completely pointless. I say “almost” because I do think there would be value in agreeing what we should call our enemies, but we can’t even get agreement on that.
I’m convinced that at this point, the president seems unable to articulate a clear strategy because doing so could potentially give his opponents and detractors a proverbial leg to stand on in the seemingly biased media.
I agree with this 100%, although I’d say that this has been the case since at least 2003. In the world of hyper-gotcha media politics, any admission of a mistake is blood in the water unless, of course, it’s a mistake made by the head-in-the-sand isolationist crowd. They, apparently, can do no wrong, although they can eventually be completely ignored once they have outlived their usefulness in advancing the agenda. Ms. Sheehan, call your office.
The newspaper here in Bloomington actually ran an article over the weekend about the import of success in Iraq; however, I don’t think it was quite what you are looking for. It was very bleak, too depressing in fact for me on a Sunday morning.
The gist of the article was the consequences of if the troop surges don’t work (I can hear your liberal media detectors going into overdrive from here). I can try to find an online version for you if you’re interested.
“Bush may have started this war, but the country is fighting it. ”
Lex,
I disagree with you on this point. The country is not fighting this war, DOD, the intel agencies and a few others are but the country as a whole is not. All that the general public is realy doing is buying yellow ribbon magnets and watching flyovers at sporting events. There is not sense of a nation at war. We can argue about taxes one way or another but where are the bond drives? Heck Viet Nam at least had the buy a US Savings bond ads. Where is the call for national service? I agree that Charlie Rengel is wrong on his call for conscription but at least he is calling for some effort on the part of the populace.
Those of us who lurk on these blogs have a greater stake than most of our countrymen as well as a better understanding of the need and cost of war but our countrymen truly have not been called to war.
Who is to blame? The Administration AND the media are both guilty on this. If politicians would act like leaders and the media of all stripes cared less about the shareholders?
“Bush may have started this war, but the country is fighting it. ”
Lex,
I disagree with you on this point. The country is not fighting this war, DOD, the intel agencies and a few others are but the country as a whole is not. All that the general public is realy doing is buying yellow ribbon magnets and watching flyovers at sporting events. There is not sense of a nation at war. We can argue about taxes one way or another but where are the bond drives? Heck Viet Nam at least had the buy a US Savings bond ads. Where is the call for national service? I agree that Charlie Rengel is wrong on his call for conscription but at least he is calling for some effort on the part of the populace.
Those of us who lurk on these blogs have a greater stake than most of our countrymen as well as a better understanding of the need and cost of war but our countrymen truly have not been called to war.
Who is to blame? The Administration AND the media are both guilty on this. If politicians would act like leaders and the media of all stripes cared less about the shareholders’ bottom line we may actually fight this war as a nation, not as a disjointed effort by individual elements of our government.
(I will now take off my rose colored glasses.)