News-Record.com

I can understand your reaction to Tierney's piece, but I think he has a point. Since there's no such thing as objectivity in news reporting, it might be worth giving up the antiquated notion that "we're just reporting what happens."

Every day, reporters and editors make decisions about what story leads, what goes on the front page, how many words are cut, etc. Tierney is simply suggesting a shift in what makes the news and what doesn't. As he points out, the influence of media is often psychological. If murder doesn't lead the 11:00 news every night, people get a more realistic sense of what life in a given area is like.

The same holds true in Iraq, and the media have been guilty of reporting the bad and cutting (or ignoring) the good. If the only stories we get from correspondents in the Middle East are about suicide bombings and how many Americans or civilians were killed in today's explosions, we're bound to get a grim picture of the situation — even if the picture isn't quite so grim.

I suspect the situation in Iraq is better than what's reported, but how can I know unless the media are honest their reports. Tierney is just calling for a more honest portrayal of any given situation.

I have to say that I agree with Jason, at least in terms of "Exhibit A." I've never read Mr. Tierney before, never met him either, so I can't say whether or not he's an idiot. But I can say that I don't think this example shows him to be an idiot.

In addition to agreeing with Jason's points let me also say that I can't recall ever reading anything that isn't at least a little subjective. Writing and reading are both human endeavours, which necessitates subjectivity. You could write the dullest article in the world, chock full of facts with very few adjectives and every person that reads it will add their own.

Remember, your perception is your reality.

I oppose Tierney's position because forgetting about the suicide bombings makes it easier to forget about the context in which they occur. If he was suggesting replacing the effort spent to cover bombings with effort spent covering that context, I might go along with that. If he was saying that we have limited resources and we must choose which among many stories we must cover, I might buy that if there were an honest cost-benefit analysis involved. But he ain't doing either one. He's saying, in effect, let's just not think about it for a while.

No. If it's not his job to think about it, then whose is it?

I just reread the column and I can't figure out where you get the idea he's saying we should stop thinking about the suicide bombings for awhile.

The central question he poses is:

But I'm still puzzled by our zeal in frantically competing to get gruesome pictures and details for broadcasts and front pages.

It's the enthusiasm with which media outlets pursue "bleeding" stories that upsets Tierney. Nowhere does he even hint that reporters should simply ignore reality. He's looking for a more fair treatment of the situation with the recognition that the media can influence the public's perception and, by extension, the motivation of the terrorists themselves.

I do not accept two of Tierney's premises: that media outlets pursue "bleeding" stories disproportionately in the Middle East, and that the way the media have treated such stories has been in any way unfair. Those premises MIGHT be true, but I'd sure like to see proof before I buy into the notion that we ought to stop covering what is otherwise a real news event.

So you're willing to concede that his premises might be true, but you are also willing to call him a "complete idiot" whose premises are so bad you don't even want to talk about them?

The problem with the proof you want is that either you have to convince John Robinson to fund your own trip to the Middle East so you can see for yourself or you have to take the word of the reporters who are already there and are the primary means of information-gathering. The latter option is the only viable one for you and me, and Tierney suggests (from his own experience) that those reporters could serve the public better by not focusing as much on suicide bombings and other stories about death.

No, Jason, I'm really not willing to concede that his premises are true.

Here's the deal: By the closest thing we have to an objective standard, the administration's predictions about how things in Iraq would be at this point, things in Iraq are not going well. Suicide bombings are a key component of the deviation from those predictions. Also? They're bombings, dude. People are getting killed, including but not limited to Iraqi government officials, police officers and Americans. And the bombers aren't doing it just for the publicity.

Tierney, having reported on all this, knows that. And for him to suggest we should just tuck it all into the back pages, or not report on it at all, is professional negligence or worse. "Complete idiot" is shorthand for that, and I stand by it.

I don't really know where to begin...

I sense that no matter what I say, I risk being labeled an idiot.

So, here goes:

I can't for the life of me figure out what is wrong with what this guy is proposing. I understand you point, Lex... I think. But, your point appears to be wrapped up in some grandiose anti-Bush administration thinking.

I think what Tiereny is trying to say is let's not cover these things quite as much as we have. Seems reasonable to me.

I liken it to the media over-covering missing, young, somewhat attractive white women. TV covers things primarily based on what images they can run as B-roll. So, they have good images of young, semi-attractive women and can talk over those.

Obviously, a suicide bombing images are not attractive, they are available video and show devistation. They provided B-roll material. The stories get covered because people can talk over them. 24 hour news contributes to the over-coverage.

Newspaper editors see all this and then decide, "Yes, to be a Journalist, I must cover this extensively, too." So, there you have the vicious cycle.

I don't think it is professional negligence to think more critically about how much a story REALLY impacts people before throwing it out on the front page.

Terrorists exist to promote terror and to terrorize. To overblow their attempts at this plays right into their hands. Let's try to remember that.

OK, flame away, Lex. I am an idiot, too.

Jim, based on your previous posts, I would never call you an idiot.

My thinking isn't "anti-Bush." It's the thinking of someone whose job for the past 21 years has been to hold up a government's or a politician's performance against, among other measures, that government/politician's promises, irrespective of party. Politicians scream and whine all the time when journalists do that, as if checking to see whether they keep their promises is somehow playing dirty pool. The technical term for such screaming and whining involves a barnyard epithet.

Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the suicide-bombing casualty numbers coming out of Iraq aren't wildly inflated (Do you know of any reason to think otherwise?), they speak to how things ARE going in Iraq in comparison with how the government SAID things would go. There's a clear disconnect. That disconnect is news. It's important news, as are the reasons for that disconnect and the context in which it is occurring, given the level of American involvement, civilian and military, in Iraq.

Whatever the solution is, in my humble opinion, less coverage isn't it. But I don't work for The New York Times, so I could be wrong. Feel free to try to change my mind.

I don't know, Lex.

I can't say I feel that strongly about it all. I sense the guy is just saying "let's mull this over a bit before we hype every suicide bombing in Iraq."

I do think three things:

1) The administration for at least a year has said that things in Iraq will get worse before they get better. As a matter of fact, every time I turn around someone in the Bush administration is saying "brace yourself for more violence." So, I don't think we need to counterbalance what they are saying...

2) The goal of the suicide bombers is to make us give up. Period. So, if we keep over-covering their issue when we know that they are wrong and we are right, what is the point? Really? Certainly, we want to cover this stuff, but to what extent?

3) It's not just Tiereny's job to think about these suicide bombings. Obviously, the military that are in Iraq have a vested interest to think about this and solve the issue. I'm not sure how me seeing bodies covered in blood on my newspaper every morning is going to solve it -- we're going to stay as long as it takes to fix this. (Unless of course, media with an agenda turn this in the Tet Offensive -- which was a bunch of over-blown hype, too...)

Re yr point 1: The administration promised from the beginning that we would be greeted as liberators; by and large, we weren't. It promised that Iraq's oil revenue would cover the costs of what we were doing there. Obviously it isn't. It has claimed that terrorists there were "on the run" and "almost defeated," and so on. The recent spate of bombings suggests that these assessments were not true.

2) I understand what the terrorists' goal is. But suppose the administration decides for its own reasons, not having to do with the bombings, that it's in our best national interests to get out. Would the fact that that's what the sponsors of the suicide bombers want make that decision any less valid? (For the record, I have no idea whether we should get out or not and suspect that there are no good answers to the question.) It's not like this hasn't already happened: Osama bin Laden claimed to have organized 9/11 in part because he wanted our military bases out of Saudi Arabia ... and that's what we're doing. Would you tell the Pentagon and the president that such a move is wrong just because bin Laden says it's right?

3) I agree that it's not just Tierney who has an interest -- it's all Americans, not just the military, not to mention the Iraqis and all the other nations with troops there and all of Iraq's neighbors and trading partners. (Some interests are more proximate and pressing than others, of course.) I'm not sure what that has to do with coverage of the bombings, however.

(One note about Tet: It didn't turn people against the war because it was portrayed as a Communist victory, even if it was; it turned people against the war because U.S. leaders had been saying that the insurgency had been so weakened that such an offensive was impossible in the first place. Once that claim proved false, the leadership's judgment on other war issues came into question as well.)

As for bloody bodies, we don't run photos of bloody bodies every day. We don't run photos of bloody bodies much at all, from Iraq or anywhere else. But we report the news. And given the context and the stakes, I think we're obliged to. Tierney thinks differently, but I've yet to see a good explanation for how reduced coverage would help the situation.

Lex,

Your demagoguery is idiotic.

Jasper: Prove it. Show me where I have committed demagoguery. Have I misstated a fact, used flawed logic, constructed a straw-man argument, pointlessly changed the subject? I think not, but, hey, I could be wrong.

John Tierney must be an idiot. At the age of 79, I worked for 51 years until my retirement at age 65. I had five years of relative mobility until arthritis grabbed me in its fierce bonds.

Who but an idiot would suggest that I should have worked longer based on his specious argument (June14th) that there are senior athletes who can heave a javelin 150 yards at the age of 69?

I was fortunate enough to have inherited a few brains, but must have been behind the door when they handed out javelins.

Also, I am certain that the young people who replaced me after I trained then were not sorry to see me retire at 65!

Now I wish that Bill Safire had not retired from the NYT. His replacement,if not idiotic, seems prematurely senile by comparison.