Reacting to McQ’s argument that deficiencies in the MSM’s Iraq coverage are the result of editorial framing decisions that create an almost incidental bias by omitting important contextual markers that would worry their sensationalist narrative, Tall Dave suggests that something more intentional may be at work here:
I’m not saying the media hates America or supports the terrorists or anything silly like that. Far from it. As in Vietnam, the press’ treachery is quite noble and well-intentioned. Most of them believe that losing in Iraq will teach America a lesson it badly needs to learn for its own good. From their perspective, Iraq (like Vietnam) was always an unjustified, “unwinnable” lost cause, so by helping us to admit defeat sooner they’re actually saving lives—and besides, nothing short of a humiliating withdrawal will provide the necessary impetus to fix the horrible militaristic flaws they perceive in our foreign policy.
That’s why you see the American casualty count being focused on to an extent that is almost comical; as far as the media in concerned, casualties are the news and any progress is a meaningless non-event since we’re going to lose anyway; the only question from their perspective is how many lives will be wasted.
For my part—and at the risk of sounding too equitable—I think both arguments are correct; Dave is certainly right, for instance, to note that the MSM—since that moment it realized no large WMD stockpiles would be uncovered in Iraq—has been against what it now perceives to be an illegitimate war, and so has framed the story as an object lesson in arrogance, hoping that, through its efforts, the US government (and the public) will in the future be more circumspect before launching aggressive overseas campaigns (a narrative that is itself fraught with arrogance, though one that is less evil than it is self-important and sanctimonious). But McQ, too, is correct, insofar as one can use FOXNews as an object of study. Long-believed (incorrectly, I’d argue) to be an arm of the Republican spin machine, the conservative-leaning network nevertheless presents Iraq as a series of IED explosion and US and Iraq casualties—though as part of it’s “fair and balanced approach” it does, in fact, mix in stories of US victories in battle and of logistical and civil successes. Still, its problem, like those of its less balanced competitors, is a decided lack of context. As McQ puts its,:
When you frame the war as a series of random events which end in casualties, most would consider it to be a matter of incompetence. But if those casualties are given a context, are framed as a part of other things which are happening in Iraq, are shown to be part of an effort that is improving the situation, then “incompetence” doesn’t fit.
This, it seems to me, is precisely correct: much of what the US public gets from the MSM is a series of nodal points that, whether by design or not (and I believe it can be either or both, depending on the source), leaves out the important connective tissue of narrative—transitions, backstory, allusion, indexical reference, etc—that might otherwise help us flesh out causality and provide us with a clearer understanding of the realities on the ground— something I’ve argued here recently.
An interesting corollary to all this is public perception, which—despite what we’ve been led to believe, particularly in the wake of the August Cindy Sheehan anti-war offensive — remains remarkably pragmatic, with 79% of Americans saying it is important for “Iraq to become a stable company that rejects terrorism,” with 59% noting that Iraqi stability if very important to the U.S. Still, the President’s approval ratings for his handling of the war have been dropping steadily, the result of several contingent factors (should the Iraq Constitution succeed, for example, I expect those approval ratings to surge), one of which, no doubt, is the problem with how the war has been framed. Some commenters blame this public dissatisfaction on the Administration, who they claim has failed to explain forcefully enough the necessity of the Iraq campaign beyond the initial overthrow of Hussein and his sons; others argue that a broken media is predominantly to blame, and are able to cite specific statistical examples to shore up this claim.
Whatever the cause of the problem, however—and whatever the motivations—what is no doubt true is that the necessity and nobility of the Iraq campaign has been woefully undersold; which is not to say the Administration hasn’t provided adequate and frequent justification—after all, for those of us who follow politics closely, further arguments for or against the war are hardly necessary (rhetorically dishonest “progressivist” calls for further “debate” notwithstanding)—but rather to point out that “adequate” is simply not sufficient in a media climate driven by the dual impulses of sensationalism and activism.
****
(h/t to Terry Hastings for the Opinion Journal link; see also, General Wayne Downing’s “Meet the Press” remarks)
****
update: Steve Sturm, whom I linked in the original post, responds in the comments. For what it’s worth, my generalization of those who lay blame with the administration was a bit overbroad with regard to Steve’s own argument, though for purposes of making the larger point, I’m satisfied with the summation.
Interestingly, Steve’s point about never hearing terrorist casualty numbers was one I was making this weekend to Froggy, with whom I had a few beers while he was in Denver over the weekend on business. Froggy and I both agreed that the ratio of enemy kills to US deaths must be enormous, and that we need to hear more about that.
My guess is, though, that the MSM would view such statistics as “glorying” in carnage, or some other such nonsense.
Damn, man.
You know, Jeff, this is one of the best sites on the net for reasoned commentary. That it also includes GAY PORN is just whipped cream… er, so to speak.
Nicely put, Jeff. So nicely put, in fact, that I have no smartass comment to add.
Yet.
Jeff, that was extremely well presented. I’d like to add the observation that a portion of the flying public abandons air travel after a major air disaster – precisely because of the overwrought news coverage and despite the statistics showing air travel to be far safer than most other modes of transportation.
So too with Iraq where the majority of US residents ‘get’ the mission: spread democracy, set examples, raise the standard of living, etc. Yet there are always some who are swayed by the incessant bad news and see failure as inevitable. Like plane crashes, bombs and death make good news and frighten the timid, but this isn’t the whole story and in the specific case of Iraq is only a tiny fragment of a much larger image.
I too hope the administration can find a way to get more of the good into the news. It’s out there, as they say.
Remember a couple years back when some soldier told a journalist that the Army was going to start fielding a 250-millimeter pistol or some such and the dope and his dopey editor published it as fact? One big problem is that since about the 70s or early 80s the number of journalists, editors, and news producers with any experience with or understanding of the military has been pretty much zero or functionally zero at least. They can’t put it into a narrative because they don’t understand what the hell is happening on the ground in Iraq. They could ask the Pentagon to provide them with some perspective or take soldier’s words for it, but to lefty journalists they’re imperialist-capitalist stooges and part of the war machine journalists are supposed to be investigating. If there’s a veteran at all, much less one with more than say ten years of service on the editorial board of any major paper in the country I’d be pretty surprised.
Bob Scheer helpfully provides a perfect example of the attitude I’m talking about.
Ooops. Click the link first! Sorry, McQ already made my point. Never mind. I’d agree that both are probably going on.
Jeff:
I’m not blaming the Administration for failing “to explain forcefully enough the necessity of the Iraq campaign beyond the initial overthrow of Hussein and his sons”. Bush has made it very clear that he thinks the Iraq conflict is key to America’s long-term security.
What Bush needs to do is is explain to the American people how we can follow the ‘game’ (yes, I know it is no game) while we’re sitting in our armchairs at home. We know ‘why’ we are in Iraq, but we don’t know ‘how’ the war is being fought, and we’re not being given the score.
We don’t know what the military is trying to do in Iraq, other than, in very broad terms, to stay alive and kill terrorists. We don’t know how they’re going about the job. We don’t know how effective they are at the job they’re trying to do.
The only benchmark we are being given involves the steps the Iraqis are taking. We get dates of elections, we get updates of how their constitutional talks are going. But we don’t get anything that relates to what our troops are doing: the number of terrorists killed, the number of provinces relatively safe from insurgency, the extent to which infrastructure is being rebuilt, and so on.
Look at the historical parallels. When, as McQ cited, we have arrows showing movement, as in WWII and Desert Storm, we both understand what is going on and can tolerate casualties. It’s when the narrative isn’t easy to understand and we are only given the costs that are being incurred that we start to wonder if the whole enterprise is worthwhile.
Because Bush hasn’t given us anything beyond the generic ‘we must stay the course’ ‘we must fight the terrorists’ claptrap, we are confused… and combined with the negative news coming from the MSM, is it any wonder that we think we’re losing?
And I’ve added you to my blogroll. Thanks for linking to me.
I swear, I did not read this New Yorker piece until after I wrote the above. But the match… perfect! It’s so uncanny it’s almost scary.
Jeff,
Excellent analysis. One other factor that I see driving the news coverage of the war is a lack of seriousness about the war. The media is not worried at all that we could lose this war. Hell, we lost Viet Nam, and that didn’t hurt us from their point of view. As far as they are concerned, we could lose another war in a far off land, and it wouldn’t affect the price of latte in Manhattan. If we get into a war where a loss would impact their lifestyles in a big way, they’ll be on our side like they were in WWII.
Good point, CPA. The statistical unlikelihood that one will be killed in a terrorist attack makes the problem seem abstract and remote—or, at the very least, much less pressing than the need to attack George Bush for being a malaprop-prone cowboy who wants to trade our civil liberties for petro dollars…
Jeff, you need to work hard to get Q&O’s little pet troll, mkultra, over here.
He’s a hoot!
i think he has been here before.
I am now exerting my considerable skill at mind reading. Given the uniformity among war “reporters”, it becomes simple to pick up that whenever “enemy killed” is spoken they hear “Westmoreland”.
*My guess is, though, that the MSM would view such statistics as “glorying†in carnage,*
Heh, implying there’s something wrong with glorying in the deaths of homocidal jihadists, bound and determine to slay jew and gentile alike. Personally, I think the problem is America doesn’t celebrate the death of murdering madman quite enough.
Jeff,
I think the real question or the observation should be, after the recent CINDY circus is being
is elevated in most media circles, is how aggressive is the MSM going to push their anti war
mantra. And if there is any way,(doubtful) can the American public make the MSM held accountable for their bias?
God forbid if the MSM actually actual watches, never mind airs, W’s speech from earlier today in recognition of the 60th anniversary of VJ Day. (Besides FNC who carried a portion of it live.) A fine history lesson which provides some worthy historical perspective on Iraq and the greater war on terrorism.
Excellent! I tried to trackback but wouldn’t for some reason.
Some similar thoughts here.
Jeff:
I think it’s fair to state that the msm has taken an adversarial stance toward this administration–as the political opposition. Such a conclusion is easy to reach when compared to the fawning kid glove treatment given the Clinton administration. Add in the msm being primarily in the tank for President Bush’s opponents in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the media coverage of this conflict is easy to understand–they’re against the policies of this administration.
Some will undoubtedly suggest this conclusion is too harsh, but frankly, I think this discussion of frames and context is too subtle for the brutal reality that the msm is operating as the political opposition.
Is my conclusion, perhaps, a generalization that is overly simplistic? Well sure. It’s the exceptions to the stereotypical reporting that proves the rule.
The context and framing of fighting an insurgency is beyond the capability of a media that cannot even see the distinction with Vietnam. For them, Vietnam is merely a distinction without a difference.
Within 10 days of the US’ engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan, the NYTimes’ Johnny Apple invoked the term “quagmire,” and despite how quickly that observation was discredited by the quick capitulation of Kabul, that word has been used as a term of derision throughout the Iraq campaign.
And “quagmire” has been used incessantly, from the pause in the initial march to Baghdad, due to a sandstorm, to the “Stalingrad” of deadly urban warfare that was “predicted” for the initial taking of Baghdad. While demonstrably proven false for each invocation, usage of the term quagmire is the context that frames the stories the msm reports on in Iraq.
“If it bleeds, it leads” is a cliche for a reason–and not just an epithet made up by the VRWC.
<styles in a big way, they’ll be on our side like they were in WWII. </blockquote>
Well what the fuck happened on September 11, 2001?
OK, I’ll try again.
<styles in a big way, they’ll be on our side like they were in WWII. </blockquote>
What more devastation need happen on our soil before it would impact their lifestyles?
“with 79% of Americans saying it is important for “Iraq to become a stable company that rejects terrorism,†with 59% noting that Iraqi stability if very important to the U.S.”
HALLLLLIBURTON! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! CHIMPYCHIMPYCHIMPY!
Oh, and, um… COCK!
TW: john. Heheheh. He said, “john”.
I think it’s better that the Pentagon tries to stick with a “we don’t do body counts” mentality. If the press started reporting enemy KIA numbers they would likely have to get the numbers from the Pentagon. And if the Pentagon thought that was important or would help the war effort they would pressure local commanders to increase it, which would have a negative effect on a “hearts and minds” campaign. (You might be less likely to see something like Michael Yon described in his “Gates Of Fire” where LTC Kurilla thought a 2LT was shooting a man just for running away.)
I think most Americans take it for granted that US troops tend to have a high kill ratio, so it would have at best a marginal effect on domestic morale. Something along the lines of Chrenkoff’s good news would be more effective. You know, if more of the media reported on it and all.
I tend to disagree, somewhat. I do think the “good news” needs to get out, but it’s not enough. News about military strategy, campaigns, and victories (as well as defeats) also needs to be out there.
I am not saying the military needs to give detailed plans, which is a bad idea for several obvious reasons, but that the public needs to see the pattern of military engagements. Right now, if you get your news from the MSM, you’d think the only thing going on was “Iraqi” “insurgents” occasionally blowing up Americans. You’d think we were sitting ducks, not carrying out military operations, because the press tends to cover none of this, just the photogenic explosions and the body counts.
The media is not worried at all that we could lose this war.
and
I think most Americans take it for granted that US troops tend to have a high kill ratio
Exactly. And I think if you apply the reasoning behind these two statements to “the left” as a political entity, it’s easy to see why calling them “traitors” or “anti-American” is so ridiculous in most cases. I can say personally that it’s taken me a long time to get to the point where I can believe, at a gut level, that there is any chance of our “losing” the war in any substantive sense. After 9/11, my reaction was more or less that these people had to be fucking crazy, fucking stupid, or both to think that knocking down a couple of buildings was going to achieve anything for them. I wasn’t sure how they could look at the same military imbalance that they use as an excuse to murder civilians and decide that the best thing to do would be to piss us off.
Now, I guess I see it a little differently. For all our military and economic might, we definitely do have the Achilles’ heel of an open society and ingrained resistance to Draconian security measures… so all the F-16s and LTC Kurillas in the world may not be enough to counter the insidiousness of an enemy that can live among us like normal people, all the while planning to die and take as many Americans with them as possible. The thought of “losing” to these people still seems surreal and unlikely to me, though, and I’m sure that a significant percentage of reporters see things much the way I do. To them, there is simply no urgency about the Iraq War, because even if we “lose” this one battle, the final outcome of the war is as inevitable as death and taxes: we have always won when we needed to in the past, and we’re stronger now than ever before, so what chance do a bunch of religious crazies with scraggly beards have against us?
I still don’t see the predominance of negative news as anything sinister or unusual in the aggregate (if nothing else, the Katrina coverage demonstrates for the millionth time that “if it bleeds, it leads” applies to more than just Bush Admin foreign policy), but I’m beginning to think that at least on the statistical margins of reporter decision-making, where the fence-sitters and undecideds might be convinced by a slightly different tone or focus, that lack of urgency may have a measurable effect. But that means that people need to be convinced of the urgency, not attacked as traitors. There’s a big difference.