The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
The real story
: Jay Rosen continues his discussion about the quality of reporting from Iraq. The issue isn’t painting the situation as good or bad but the story we’re missing, the one that takes some imagination, vision, and perspective. He compares the story of the rebuilding of Iraq with the story of the unbuilding of the World Trade Center:
Journalists are suppposed to tell us what
I agree, basically. Still, all too often you get the impression the question isn’t “did they have an adequate plan?”, it’s “did they have a plan?” and “if so, why wasn’t it shared with anyone?”
It’s a basic accountability issue. It would have been OK with me if they’d said “Following Operation Iraqi Freedome will be Operation Iraqi Winging It, with contingency strategies A, B, and C, because our crystal ball technology is not up to the challenge of predicting how things will go in Iraq. We think costs will be between X and 4X billion. We’ll keep you posted.” Instead, they pooh-poohed high cost estimates going in, and now want those funds after all.
I realize your post is about the press, not the administration, but I think it illustrates why the press can and should be after this part of the story, too.
But the point about unscripted experiments rings true, and I think some Langewiesche type reporting would be great.
As a military man, I am concerned that the pentagon did not have a good for post war Iraq. However, I am also very familiar with the reality that no plan lasts past the first shot.
I think most people have no idea of the chaos inherent in even the best-planned military operation.
When dealing with something that has been done even less often than war, reconstruction, realizing 95% of planning would have been wrong and deciding to wing it seems to me a realistic strategy. However, saying that might not be politically prudent.
I like the comparison to Langewiesche’s articles on unbuilding the WTC. However, even that fine writer could not help but editorialize, shoving his own personal opinions into places where they needn’t have appeared. Mostly, this occurred when he was talking about the WTC workers — his contempt for their surburban lifestyle, and, occasionally, what they did for a living, is barely contained in a few spots.
This is by way of illustrating that even the best journalism is probably tainted by personal bias. This isn’t my complaint with the coverage we are getting from the mainstream press in Iraq. Perfection in this area doesn’t exist. I don’t mind hearing bad news, provided it’s true. What I object to is large swaths of the story remaining completely untold. How do we know whether there was an adequate post-war plan or not, when much of what it might or might not be accomplishing is ignored by those who should be reporting it.
That’s my complaint. And, given that the Bagdhad press corps seems to have been more than happy to play ball with Saddam’s thugs to keep their prestigious overseas posts, I am skeptical of the ability of these same people to give us the truth now. Some regime change amongst the members of the press there might be a good idea.
Laurie K.