Now reporting from Baghdad...
For months, newspaper editors across the country have gotten e-mails questioning why the media haven't reported the progress being made in Iraq in getting power grids back up, in foreign embassies opening, in getting schools started and the like. The good news from the war, so to speak.
Kit Seelye of The New York Times writes about a meeting between newspaper editors and editors at The Associated Press trying to answer those questions. (Reg. req.)
The wire service explained some of the problems reporting from what one media organization describes as the most dangerous place in the world for a journalist.
"Other editors said they get calls from readers who are hearing stories from returning troops of the good things they have accomplished while there, and readers find that at odds with the generally gloomy portrayal in the papers of what's going on in Iraq," (Mike Silverman of the AP) said.
Indeed, we do.
Silverman promised an overview article on the war's progress every 10 days. He also said that AP has reported much of the information the e-mails complained was omitted, but he acknowledged that "details had been buried in articles or the articles had been overlooked." (Seelye's paraphrase.)
An overview every 10 days won't solve the coverage problem, given the polarization the war has created, but it can't hurt. I just don't know what took the AP so long to address the issue.
Because of our interest in local news, we don't publish much in-depth coverage from the war zone most days. (This being an exception.) Our daily reports tend to cover the day's casualties, the progress of the new constitution or what was won or lost. That, coupled with what they get from television, satisfies most people's news appetites. Those interested in more detail will get it from the Internet in something closer to real time.
I know that some readers on both sides of the political dividing line would like us to publish more news about the war....so long as it meets their litmus test. I won't promise that. However, we will find a home for AP's overviews of the war if they shed light on conditions in Iraq.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It appears that you are now saying their has been a liberal bias in the MSM regarding the war. I understand and agree that the N-R war coverage is going to be limited. But where do you (the N-R) go to get unedited coverage?
Posted on August 16, 2005 1:41 PM
Chip, I didn't intend to say that. What led you to think that's what I meant?
Also, can you elaborate on your question? I'm not sure I understand.
Posted on August 16, 2005 3:22 PM
The problem discussed by the AP and the NYT was that much of the progress and good news happening in Iraq was either being edited out or not reported at all. That is clearly a bias. (see michellemalkin.com for more links).
There are many reporters embedded with troops. Evidently much of what they report is edited out by their editors. Since you brought it up, I thought you were admitting a problem exsits with the media coverage.
My question is if the AP is editing its reporting before you see it, where can you go to get the enedited versions...
Posted on August 16, 2005 4:00 PM
I'm not suggesting that reporting progress in the war zone reflects a liberal or conservative bias, although I know the ground that the commentators are trying to claim.
We'll continue to go to the AP and our other wire services for their articles. The AP is editing its articles, but the story I linked to doesn't say they are eliminating pertinent information. It says that that information isn't prominently displayed or papers -- like ours, I suppose -- aren't selecting those articles to publish. The routine overviews of the war will help address these problems.
Posted on August 16, 2005 4:29 PM