Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?

[Futobingoro]

There is a new development in Iraq War journalism. Though it does not directly pertain to Iraq casualty reporting, it nonetheless illustrates one of the media's failures.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-30T190543Z_01_BAU068721_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-NEWSPAPERS.xml
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511300264nov30,1,6049966.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Now, the US military is disseminating these stories as though they were written by objective, independent writers. I do not intend to focus on this aspect of the story, because I probably agree with most that the military's practice here is questionable.

I do, however, intend to focus on the label of 'propaganda' given to the military's Iraq stories. The media ought to exercise extreme caution when labeling something as 'propaganda.' I am taking issue with the media because I believe they have not exercised such caution. The media have failed to consider that the labeling of something as 'propaganda' may, in itself, constitute propaganda. The media's labeling of these stories as 'propaganda' is suspect due to their track record. The New York Times reserved a 4-page section for the names and pictures of 1,000 dead US soldiers, bridging the gap between that issue and their previous 1,000th-death issue. CNN, CBS, ABC and others report almost every terrorist bombing, attack and kidnapping in Iraq. George Bush's low approval rating is quoted almost daily. News organizations frequently tabulate the total monetary cost of the war. And the media have the arrogance to judge whether something is 'propaganda'?!

It is a sad reflection on the media when the only effort for positive reporting is being made by the US military through Iraqi newspapers.

 

[Manchot]

There is a new development in Iraq War journalism. Though it does not directly pertain to Iraq casualty reporting, it nonetheless illustrates one of the media's failures.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-30T190543Z_01_BAU068721_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-NEWSPAPERS.xml
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511300264nov30,1,6049966.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Now, the US military is disseminating these stories as though they were written by objective, independent writers. I do not intend to focus on this aspect of the story, because I probably agree with most that the military's practice here is questionable.
I do, however, intend to focus on the label of 'propaganda' given to the military's Iraq stories. The media ought to exercise extreme caution when labeling something as 'propaganda.' I am taking issue with the media because I believe they have not exercised such caution. The media have failed to consider that the labeling of something as 'propaganda' may, in itself, constitute propaganda. The media's labeling of these stories as 'propaganda' is suspect due to their track record. The New York Times reserved a 4-page section for the names and pictures of 1,000 dead US soldiers, bridging the gap between that issue and their previous 1,000th-death issue. CNN, CBS, ABC and others report almost every terrorist bombing, attack and kidnapping in Iraq. George Bush's low approval rating is quoted almost daily. News organizations frequently tabulate the total monetary cost of the war. And the media have the arrogance to judge whether something is 'propaganda'?!
It is a sad reflection on the media when the only effort for positive reporting is being made by the US military through Iraqi newspapers.

The goal of the news should not be "positive reporting." It should convey the truth. If the media did not report about the going-ons in Iraq, then we would have no idea how the war is going, because the Bush administration certainly gives us no clue. The reason that they point out the negatives is because there are so few positives. And no, labelling the Iraqi journalist thing as propaganda is not propaganda itself. The military is paying journalists to alter their stories in their favor. If that isn't propaganda I don't know what is.

 

[Futobingoro]

And no, labelling the Iraqi journalist thing as propaganda is not propaganda itself.

Many people have a vested interest in discounting the positive aspects of the war.

The military is paying journalists to alter their stories in their favor.

There are many anti-war journalists who will alter their stories free of charge.

This is not the largest problem here, however.

The reason that they point out the negatives is because there are so few positives.

You make the assumption that because the media has reported so few positives, there must not be very many positives. What information did you use to make that judgment? Where did it come from? I am 99.9% certain that your information came from the media. As I have said numerous times, one can not use information from the media to defend the media. Doing so is akin to citing a report from Marlboro which says cigarettes are not responsible for lung cancer.