Jules Crittenden has a good post up, in which he wonders why the different media are not offering “an actual, meaningful, in-depth look at the execution of the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq by someone who has taken the time to understand what its goals and methods are, and isn’t just interested in kicking the crap out of it from a distance.” Jules looked at the AP, at the NYT, at the WaPo, at other major newspapers / organizations who have made quite some ‘in-depth series’ recently, but none of them offers what Jules wants to read - and I agree with Jules that it is incredibly important for media to look at it.
It may be that some other prominent newspapers, the LA Times, the Chicago Trib, are doing it. If so, it hasn’t come my way and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to scroll through all of them. I can assure you the Boston Globe isn’t doing it. They pulled out of Baghdad years ago and have now shuttered all their foreign bureaus. My own paper has never had the resources to do more than parachute into foreign trouble spots for a couple of weeks or a couple of months at a time, and these days, we aren’t doing that any more. That may well be true of your local newspaper, too. Which makes the work of organizations like the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Washington Post that much more important.
So please let me know if you find it: An actual, meaningful, in-depth look at the execution of the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq by someone who has taken the time to understand what its goals and methods are, and isn’t just interested in kicking the crap out of it from a distance. An effort to understand and report fairly on what may be the last chance to prevent a bloody humanitarian disaster on a scale not seen since Cambodia, quick, before the opportunity is thrown away.
I was going to wrap this rant up right there, but I read back over it and still can’t believe it. It is absolutely stunning in its absence. A screaming vacuum. I wonder how it is this possible.
Do not just let Jules know, if you find it - let me know as well. I would be more than interested in reading it and sharing it with you all. We get the bad news, what about the strategy used? How does it work? What should we focus on? What are the main goals and where? Etc., etc.
Lastly, Jules wonders:
So the question is, are these leading news organizations lazy, or stupid, or is it that they just don’t want to know?
I am not sure what the correct answer is, but I do know that they should do this. A screaming vacuum indeed.
In a way, this is related to the post I published earlier today about how the world will perceive a withdrawal from Iraq that will result in genocide. American media should report about this as well. It misses from most columns. I am a foreigner, and as such, I am surprised, greatly surprised, by the approach most American political analysts take.
Cross posted at TMV.
This is the reason Michael Yon and Michael Totten are indespensible.
I really wonder if the AP system, which may be designed more for width of coverage and cost efficiency rather than depth, is simply showing its limitations.
Could just be that it’s too dangerous to get on the ground in Iraq and do the necessary in-depth reporting.
I’ve gotten the impresson from A Bright and Shining Lie that journalists could generally travel pretty freely in Vietnam. It seems that they’re much more restricted in Iraq, and much more likely to be targets of violence.
Michael
I see Jules post as basically repeating the Bush admin’s assertion that the media is only reporting about the bad stuff. It’s no small secret that Jules is against anything that resembles not completely the mission and that he’s all for going to war with Iran as well. If Jules were a moderate like yourself I might see some merit in his questions, but he’s an avowed partisan journalist, who frequently accuses the NY Times, WaPo and others of being biased. From the liberal end of the spectrum, liberals see the bias directly opposite of what Crittenden claims.
I’ve never bought this pose from some on the left. Yes, there are those who only believe the things they read in the City Paper (or other urban weekly rag of your choice), The Village Voice, or The Daily Worker, but such folks are so self-marginalized that they are really not at issue. The main stream left is VERY comfortable with the NYT, and with the WaPo most of the time. The leftist cry about “corporate” media is so simplistic, uncritical, and shall we say “reality challenged” hat it is hard to be too dismissive of it.
That being said, I’m not sure this particular issue has all that much to do with an expression of political ideology as much as it is an example of structural failure as news gathering organizations.