Journalist’s Tradeplayed up martial music and MSNBCran promos urging “God BlessAmerica.”While much of my focus was on theTV packaging and presentation, I didkeep an eye on the more diverse butnot necessarily more skeptical printcoverage. Print reporters can spendmore time and be more thoughtful.They are not performers, althoughmany print journalists were called uponas interview subjects by the cable networks.I was blown away most of all bythe photographers, whose work forthe first time ended up on TV as well asin print because it was, in many ways,more striking and made more of animpact than the hyperkinetic TV pictures.(All too often, however, the networksran archival shots over and overagain without always disclosing whenthey were taken.) In this war, the picturecould be worth more than a thousandwords if only because they seemedto capture better the agony of the warand its impact on civilians.At the same time, if you comparedthe reporting in The New York Times,for example, with the far punchier reportagein the Guardian, it was clearwhich was steering a safe middle course,except when Times’s news analysts likeR.W. Apple antagonized war boostersby daring to report suggestions by militarymen that there was a quagmire. Incontrast, much of the print journalismin Europe and the Middle East was sodifferent that many thought they werecovering a different war.From the U.S. press, we never heardvoices like England’s John Pilger, whowrote: “There is something deeply corruptconsuming this craft of mine. It isnot a recent phenomenon; look backon the ‘coverage’ of the First WorldWar by journalists who were subsequentlyknighted for their services tothe concealment of the truth of thatgreat slaughter. What makes the differencetoday is the technology that producesan avalanche of repetitive information,which in the United States hasbeen the source of arguably the mostvociferous brainwashing in thatcountry’s history.” Journalists such asIsrael’s Uri Avnery condemned whathe termed “prestitution.”In the United States, many newspapersplayed the story big, thendownplayed it along with their TV counterparts.Explained Ned Warwick, foreigneditor of The Philadelphia Inquirer:“While the Inquirer ran 20stories a day during the war—about athird more than usual for foreignnews—when that statue [of Hussein]came down, the space began to contractpretty rapidly. Given the brutalnature of the combat, people are wantingto hunker down and get as far awayfrom it as they can. I was hearing readerssay, ‘Enough! Enough!’”Quotes and information like thisappeared in my daily media analyses,cobbled together from articles fromthe world press, independent sources,international agencies, and my ownobservations of the U.S. cable coverage,network shows, BBC and CBCNews. I relied on the 350 worldwidenews partners of the Globalvision NewsNetwork to offer far more diverse accountsof the facts on the ground, aswell as their interpretation.Weblogs: The Work and theBenefitsI began at six each morning, watchingtelevision at home with a remote inone hand and a notebook at my side. Iread The New York Times and the NewYork Post, New York’s weeklies as wellas news magazines and opinion journals,clipping away with a fury. I was inthe office by seven and was soonhopscotching among Web sites and e-mail that was bulging with stories I’dmissed. I’d cut and paste and then startwriting, squeezing in as much as Ithought relevant. By nine o’clock, mywriting was posted, and an editor waslooking over the copy and correctingits many typos. Within an hour, wetried to send the Weblog out to themany Mediachannel readers who subscribed.After the workday ended, I’dbe locked back on the TV, go to sleep,and do it again the next day.Writing on a Weblog gave me thespace and the freedom to have a ratherextended say and, when I could, to linkreaders directly to the sources of whatI wrote about. (At times, I was movingtoo fast to do it all.) Could my logs havebeen shorter? Probably. Would it havebeen as comprehensive? No.I deluge. You decide.It may sound crazy, and admittedlyidiosyncratic, but at least I know I amnot alone in my responses to much ofthe U.S. coverage. On April 25th, I ledmy Weblog with comments by the headof the BBC, Greg Dyke, as reported inthe Guardian: “BBC Director GeneralGreg Dyke has de<strong>live</strong>red a stingingrebuke to the U.S. [broadcast] mediaover its ‘unquestioning’ coverage ofthe war in Iraq and warned the governmentagainst allowing the U.K. mediato become ‘Americanized.’”While I agree with his general point,what bothers me about his remarks isthe all-too-common view that “unquestioningcoverage” is what all of Americanjournalism has become. It has not.My hope is that U.S. journalists willfind ways to demonstrate that this onenotewar coverage is not their finesthour and that they, along with many inthe public who are already relying onalternate and more diverse online newssources, will become more self-criticaland willing to embrace other approaches.■Danny Schechter, a 1978 <strong>Nieman</strong>Fellow, is editor ofMediachannel.org and writes thedaily “news dissector’s” Weblog. Hewrites regularly on media issues forGlobalvision News Network(www.gvnews.net) and for othernews outlets in Berlin, Brazil, Frankfurtand Teheran. His book, “MediaWars: News at a Time of Terror”(Rowman and Littlefield, <strong>2003</strong>),contains some of his writings, andan original “soundtrack CD” (withthe same name) features a collage ofcriticism of TV coverage with commentsfrom him and other critics. Todownload “Media Wars” soundtrack visit: www.polarity1.com/fcfree.htmlDanny@mediachannel.org92 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Summer <strong>2003</strong>
Getting a More Complete War StoryArab + U.S. television = more accurate war coverage.Coverage of WarThis article appeared in The Daily Staron March 25, <strong>2003</strong>, written by Rami G.Khouri, executive editor of The DailyStar, an English-language newspaperin Beirut, Lebanon. Khouri is a 2002<strong>Nieman</strong> Fellow.By Rami G. KhouriThe first thing I learned from theearly days of the war in Iraq isnot to rely solely on either Americanor Arab satellite/cable televisionchannels as primary sources of newsand analysis—but one should alsowatch both sides to get a completeview of events on the ground and inpeople’s minds. For different reasons,Arab and American television—with afew notable exceptions that confirmthe rule—both broadly provide a distorted,incomplete picture of eventswhile accurately reflecting emotionaland political sentiments on both sides.Every day I scan through 20 differentArab and American TV services.This is a painful exercise, becausethe business of reporting andinterpreting the serious news ofwar has been transformed into amishmash of emotionalcheerleading, expressions of primordialtribal and national identities,overt ideological manipulationby governments, and crass commercialpandering to the masses inpursuit of the audience shareneeded to sell advertising.American television tends to goheavy on the symbols of patriotism,with American flags fluttering asintegral elements of on-screen logosor backdrops, while emotional collagesof war photos are used liberallyas transitions between <strong>live</strong> reportsand advertising breaks. Othersigns of how American TV tends toreflect the pro-war sentiments ofthe government and many in societyinclude the tone of most anchorsand hosts, the heavy empha-sis on showcasing America’s weaponstechnology, the preponderance of exmilitarymen and women guests, notshowing the worst civilian casualties inIraq, highlighting U.S. troops’ humanitarianassistance to Iraqis, and reporters’and hosts’ use of value-laden andsimplistic expressions like “the goodguys” to refer to American troops.The most unfortunate and professionallydisgraceful aspect of U.S. televisioncoverage, in my view, has beenthe widespread double assumption thatIraqis would offer no resistance andwould welcome the U.S. Army withopen arms. Some Iraqis will surely doso, but most people in this region nowsee the Americans as an invading forcethat will become an occupying force.The American media probably reflectwidespread American ignorance aboutwhat it means to have your countryinvaded, occupied, administered andretooled in someone else’s image.Cartoon by Hassan Bleibel, Beirut, Lebanon.Reprinted by permission of Cartoonists & WritersSyndicate/cartoonweb.com.Americans are correct to assume thattheir impressive military might willprevail on the battlefield; yet they alsoappear totally and bafflingly obliviousto the visceral workings of nationalismand national identity. I have seen noappreciation whatsoever in America forthe fact that while Iraqis generally maydislike their vicious and violent Iraqiregime, the average Iraqi and Arab hasa much older, stronger and more recurringfear of armies that come intotheir lands from the West carrying politicalpromises and bags of rice.Arab television channels display virtuallyidentical biases and omissions,including heavy relaying of film of theworst Iraqi civilian casualties, interviewswith guests who tend to be criticalof the United States, hosts and anchorswho often seem to see their roleas debating rather than merely interviewingAmerican guests, acceptingIraqi and other Arab government statementsat face value without sufficientlyprobing their total accuracy,and highlighting the setbacks tothe attacking Anglo-Americanforces, by means including showingfilm of captured or dead troops.We in the Arab world are slightlybetter off than most Americans becausewe can see and hear bothsides, given the easy availability ofAmerican satellite channelsthroughout this region; most Americansdo not have easy access toArab television reports and, even ifthey did, they would need to knowArabic to grasp the full picture.Two days ago, I better understoodthe need to see images fromboth sides. Arab television stationsshowed pictures of dead and capturedAmerican troops, many ofwhich were eventually shown onAmerican television. But Arab channelsthe same day also showed ahorrifying picture that did not getinto American TV: a small Iraqi childwho had died during an American<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Summer <strong>2003</strong> 93