Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias, a Canadian, has been closely following the war on American television. Her conclusion: the coverage "has barely changed, even as the administration wants it to be even more 'positive.'"
No wonder anti-war activists are targeting the media on the "ides of March," March 15th, demanding better media coverage.
What has changed today? Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon has gone from gloating about the pro-war coverage to criticizing "exaggerated" reports
- blaming the media, not the military for ongoing setbacks.
The fact is that the violence in the country and attacks on journalists has made reporting in Iraq harder than ever for western journalists.
"As Iraq slips further into what seems an endless spasm of bloodletting, many Western reporters have been forced to hunker down, only leaving their guarded compounds for short periods and only then with a translator, a driver, and at least one bodyguard in tow," reports Paul McLeary in the Columbia Journalism Review. "As a result, they have come to rely more and more on Iraqi stringers to gather information."
He also notes that these brave reporters are often treated as second-class journalists. "For the Iraqi stringers who risk their lives and often are forced to hide what they do from friends and family, typically without even the glory of a byline in return, the answer to the question of why they do it is complicated." It mostly comes down to money.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, the US media are increasingly being denounced for promoting Islamophobia in the aftermath of the hysteria about the Dubai Ports deal and those provocative cartoons about the Prophet Mohammad.
Is our media doing a better job after three years of war in explaining these issues or reporting the various options policymakers have?
What have they learned and what are we learning?
A recent survey of US soldiers found that over 80% believed they are there to avenge 911, despite no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with that terrorist attack. True, public opinion has shifted against the war but few TV newscasts or talk programs discuss immediate withdrawal in anything but negative terms. Congress is still pouring money into the war on the "faith-based" belief that "progress is being made."
It's mad and maddening, but it seems the logic for the war has left the world of the rational entering the realm of the deranged and irrational.
And that's where the Sopranos' shrink, Dr. Melfi, might come in with an offer of group therapy for the war makers and all those "pragmatic"
Democrats who enable them and/or are in co-dependency relationships with their policies.
Perhaps it's time to send Tony Soprano to Washington to break some closed minds open and let some light in.
? "News Dissector "Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His new book is "When News Lies: Media Complicity and the Iraq War" (Wmdthefilm.com) For information on media protests visit:
http://mediachannel.org/mediaprotest.shtml. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org
No wonder anti-war activists are targeting the media on the "ides of March," March 15th, demanding better media coverage.
What has changed today? Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon has gone from gloating about the pro-war coverage to criticizing "exaggerated" reports
- blaming the media, not the military for ongoing setbacks.
The fact is that the violence in the country and attacks on journalists has made reporting in Iraq harder than ever for western journalists.
He also notes that these brave reporters are often treated as second-class journalists. "For the Iraqi stringers who risk their lives and often are forced to hide what they do from friends and family, typically without even the glory of a byline in return, the answer to the question of why they do it is complicated." It mostly comes down to money.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, the US media are increasingly being denounced for promoting Islamophobia in the aftermath of the hysteria about the Dubai Ports deal and those provocative cartoons about the Prophet Mohammad.
Is our media doing a better job after three years of war in explaining these issues or reporting the various options policymakers have?
What have they learned and what are we learning?
A recent survey of US soldiers found that over 80% believed they are there to avenge 911, despite no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with that terrorist attack. True, public opinion has shifted against the war but few TV newscasts or talk programs discuss immediate withdrawal in anything but negative terms. Congress is still pouring money into the war on the "faith-based" belief that "progress is being made."
It's mad and maddening, but it seems the logic for the war has left the world of the rational entering the realm of the deranged and irrational.
And that's where the Sopranos' shrink, Dr. Melfi, might come in with an offer of group therapy for the war makers and all those "pragmatic"
Democrats who enable them and/or are in co-dependency relationships with their policies.
Perhaps it's time to send Tony Soprano to Washington to break some closed minds open and let some light in.
? "News Dissector "Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His new book is "When News Lies: Media Complicity and the Iraq War" (Wmdthefilm.com) For information on media protests visit:
http://mediachannel.org/mediaprotest.shtml. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
