Who Really Still Thinks the Media Reports "the News"?

I got one of those circulating e-mails today - not the chain letter type, but the kind that rather breathlessly asks:  HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?  This one caught my eye, however, for it was about U.S. military successes in Iraq that had simply not been reported by the United States media.  Usually, if one tries to locate the original story, it is either non-existent, or so incredibly altered as to be nonsensical.

This one was not.  This one referred to a significant story out of Iraq that had not been reported in the American media.   A little dated, perhaps, but nonetheless the original reported story had not been folded, spindled, or mutilated by the circulating e-mail.  (And how many of you remember what to "fold, spindle, or mutilate" once meant?)  And, it was "news" to me and further evidence of my starvation for honest reporting out of the Middle East.

The original story ran in the Sunday London Times on July 6, 2008:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece .  It was authored by respected, imbedded war correspondent  Marie Colvin.  Ms. Colvin's opening paragraphs: 

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Wow.  Did you read that in any major American newspaper?  USA Today?  Hear it on CNN?  MSNBC?  Nope?  Of course not.  But in the midst of a Presidential campaign, did anyone from the GOP bother to point out that the Bush surge strategy has, in fact, in this instance been successful? 

Have we heard that the number of foreign insurgents crossing into Iraq to cause trouble has been reduced by over 80%?  Have we heard that U.S. troop casualties in Iraq in 2008 were at their lowest level since the beginning of the war?  Have we heard that 15 of the 18 benchmarks for Iraq taking full control of their country have been met and that Iraqi leadership has been extensively discussing and encouraging a timetable for U.S. withdrawal?  Some of these points, maybe, but no comprehensive reporting of U.S. successes in Iraq.

Some more from Ms. Colvin's report:

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.  ...

Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

So why is it, exactly, that I had to wait to read this story for six months, and only then in a British newspaper referenced through an e-mail?  I read two daily newspapers, occasionally a USA Today, New York Times, and/or Wall Street Journal, and I watch television news although typically not from any one outlet on a consistent basis.  When I am on the road I sometimes listen to talk radio or NPR.  I would like to think of myself as "aware" of most significant things reported in the news.  Yet this major success was news to me.

I am going to try to avoid the "L" word in this discussion, because I do not think it truly fits.  I think the greater issue is that too many in control of the media in this country have forgotten the meaning of the "J" word, "journalism."  Journalism has two generally-accepted definitions:  the profession of gathering, editing, and publishing news reports and related articles for newspapers, magazines, television, or radio, and/or  writing or reporting for the media as a literary genre or style.  Nowhere in that definition is the function of censoring, or selectively reporting the news to fit the political agenda of the media outlet.  "Fair and balanced" may be Fox News' slogan, but for the most part in the entire world of American media that phrase is a joke.

Just as politicans have lost sight of the "S" word, "statesmanship", the media are no longer functioning as "journalists."  They have become, rather, a low-rent version of some type of mind control by selectively feeding us only those stories that promote their purposes and positions.  "All editorializing, all the time, _______ News" - you fill in the blank.   Had we known of Bush's successes like this one, would we have given him such a low approval rating that John McCain would run from his presence?  Maybe so, but at least then it would have been honestly done. 

This has been a tough year for Americans, and to be an American.  Our economy is in the toilet and we still don't know if it is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.  We are despised in much of the world for reasons that are, for the most part, untrue and fostered by our own media.  We are so busy trying to apologize for the image of the "ugly American" that we have in large part forgotten how much we have to be proud of in our nation and ourselves.

America elected its first African-American President.  That is a very big deal!  While I did not vote for him, I do hope, for all our sakes, he is successful.  I also hope he can be the first step in our calling ourselves just "Americans" instead of having to add the nationality prefix.  And, we are about to experience the 44th peaceful transfer of power from one elected leader to another, an unprecedented event in the history of the world.  THAT IS A BIG DEAL, too, my friends, no matter whether your candidate won or lost.

This trend will only be changed by readers and viewers making it so.  Just as with the horrible celebrity tabloids and tabloid television, if we don't buy it, read it, or watch it, they will find something else to sell us.  We all need to get mad as hell, and not take it any more.  Demand to receive the news, all of it, not just the media's agenda, and if you don't get it, and soon, go over to those Hogan's heroes re-runs on Nickelodeon, or MASH on the Hallmark Channel.  Me, I've grown fond of those CSI: Miami all-nighters Wednesdays on  AMC, and I'm headed to join in right now.

 

Comments

[Tom]

I stopped buying the New York Times after the infamous ' General Betray Us'ad. They may thrive or survive or whatever, but not with my buck!