Recently there have been a large number of articles commenting on the poor quality of reporting on the situation in Iraq. Of course, this is not new. From the quagmire at the invasion that never materialized, to the civil war that fizzled, the mass media have hyped, and misreported all kinds of things in Iraq. I think that there may be a simple cause for all of this.
At the beginning of the war in Iraq, after the invasion was completed, but as the insurgency began winding up, there were many comments that journalists no longer felt safe leaving the compounds, and safe areas. Although you do not see this in print much any more, the idea is still out there. It has become an article of faith that journalists cannot leave the highly guarded areas in the Green Zone, unless escorted by American military. However, this is a red herring, which distracts from the fact that journalists are using their own cowardice to justify their conclusions.
This is no conflict in the minds of the media. Media personnel from actors to journalists are more confident of their own personal courage than perhaps any other group of people on earth. Films are regularly described as “courageous,” or “brave.” Broadcasts are not just relevant but ‘ground breaking.’ Some of this is deserved, and some is dramatic hyperbole, but one needs only hear the description of a respected journalist by another to realize that they are replete with words that in their strictest denotation are reserved for people who actually take action not report on it.
Here I must dismiss the danger to media, or at least cast significant doubt upon it. Iraq is a country of over 20 Million people. But by and large, it is the Coalition forces the terrorist targets. The media calculates that there are roughly 160 thousand American Service Members (not including civilian contractors, State Department etc.). Of that, 160 thousand approximately two die every day from violence or accident. How does that correspond to a city of similar size in the United States? Honestly, I do not know, and I am fairly sure that there is no city of 160 thousand that has 700 plus homicides.
That looks pretty bad, but I would note a few other things as well. It is a war zone, after all. I am not discounting completely the threat. The numbers of dead reflects all Americans in Iraq that are treated in the American hospital system, whereas the total number of Americans only reflects the number of American Service Members and not other Americans on ground. A conservative estimate of other Americans here could double that number, easily, thereby cutting the rate in half. Also, the most deadly threat is the roadside bomb, which is usually only effective against people who drive around in conspicuous vehicles, like a HMWVV, instead of the inconspicuous type that are available to journalists. Finally, even with these numbers that are more dangerous than your average day at home, tens of thousands of American soldiers get out there everyday for no other reason than it is their job, and they do it without six figure pay checks, or a drink at the end, or a possible Pulitzer Prize.
The bottom line is that most of the casualties in any given day occur in only one or two places, and usually happen to someone who you can recognize from rifle range. There is a risk that is worth accounting for. Many people have died. But this should not be more than a brave person can handle (like the 18-year-old woman who was in high school just 9 months ago and who drives our chow, for example).
This causes a cognitive dissonance for those who subscribe to the idea of journalistic courage, which drives them to believe that things are worse in Iraq than they are. If journalists are the courageous types that they believe themselves to be then their refusal to seek the truth in Iraq is evidence, prima facie, that the situation in Iraq is unbearably bad. If journalist are not willing to go into an area that is not all that bad, then they must not be brave therefore they are willing to believe at all costs, and against all evidence to the contrary that things are much worse than the evidence supports.
This is no doubt an oversimplification. I have seen first hand the misinformation that can come from relying on local ‘stringers.’ I have even received a call from a supposed Reuters reporter who wanted information, but refused to come in person so we could check his credentialing. That was likely reported as “could not be reached for comment.” All of this contributes to the problem of bad information. But I think that at least one of the root causes is the convenient cowardice.
Stay tuned to learn about the true conflict between those in the foxholes and those out of them (and I don't mean between soldiers and civilians)!
