Editors complain about not reporting the whole enire Iraq picture.

Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.

"Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?" the anonymous polemic asks, in part. "Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?"

"Of course we didn't know!" the message concludes. "Our media doesn't tell us!"

Ms. Goudreau's newspaper, like most dailies in America, relies largely on The Associated Press for its coverage of the Iraq war. So she finally forwarded the e-mail message to Mike Silverman, managing editor of The A.P., asking if there was a way to check these assertions and to put them into context. Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had also received a copy of the message.

Ms. Goudreau's query prompted an unusual discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose newspapers are members of The Associated Press. Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture beyond the daily death tolls.

"The bottom-line question was, people wanted to know if we're making progress in Iraq," Ms. Goudreau said, and the A.P. articles were not helping to answer that question.

"It was uncomfortable questioning The A.P., knowing that Iraq is such a dangerous place," she said. "But there's a perception that we're not telling the whole story."

Mr. Silverman said the wire service was covering Iraq "as accurately as we can" while "also trying to keep our people out of harm's way."

"Postwar Iraq is fraught with risks for reporters: Banditry, gunfire and bombings are common," the committee's Web site says. "Insurgents have added a new threat by systematically targeting foreigners, including journalists, and Iraqis who work for them."

Mr. Silverman said The A.P. had already decided before the meeting that it would have Robert H. Reid, an A.P. correspondent at large who has reported frequently from Iraq, write an overview every 10 days.

Mr. Silverman also said the wire service would make more effort to flag articles that look beyond the breaking news. As it turned out, he said, most of the information in the anonymous e-mail message had been reported by The A.P., but the details had been buried in articles or the articles had been overlooked.

Before the meeting, The A.P. collected three articles by reporters for other news organizations who were embedded with American troops and sent them out over the wire to provide "more voice." Mr. Silverman said he wanted to do more of that but the opportunities were limited because there are only three dozen embedded journalists now, compared with 700 when the war began more than two years ago.

Ms. Goudreau, for one, found the discussion useful. By the end, she said, editors were acknowledging that even in their own hometowns, "we're more likely to focus on people who are killed than on the positive news out of a school."

this shows that the Iraq war is not lost as most people would assume, its because of the way the media reports. not to mentions insurgent and terrorists who want their own videos on world media that killing one marine or destroy one American tank is like killing 5,000 Americans or an American division of tanks was wiped out. thats the problem. im sure u ATS members keep seeing on major news stations like CBS or ABC or NBC that keeps reporting only bad news only. or keep military dead count like it was the national debt counter or somthing.


[edit on 15-8-2005 by deltaboy]

Do you have a link? I'd like to read the whole story. Thanks.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you have a link? I'd like to read the whole story. Thanks.

here ya go, i forgot. in anicase its somthing we should look into.

link

It's actually really frustrating. You really have to jump through hoops to find out what's going on over there that's not bad. Pretty much the only source for good news is via Iraqi blogs and soldier blogs.

I mean, it's good to know the bad, too. I don't want to be blissfully ignorant of what's really going on there, but I also don't want to be miserably ignorant of what's really going on there.

This is a nice source for some information that doesn't "sell" in the MSM: iraqthemodel.blogspot.com...

The rest of my links seem to be at home

Another great blog is desert-smink.blogspot.com... . He was a PR guy in Iraq for a year, and is a very talented writer. It doesn't really go into the whole picture. Rather, it just tells the tale of one soldier who started a blog so his family could get updates on what he's been doing without having to send many, many letters all saying the same thing. When I found it, I read through the whole blog in 2 days. Very interesting story.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.

"Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?" the anonymous polemic asks, in part. "Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?"

"Of course we didn't know!" the message concludes. "Our media doesn't tell us!"

[edit on 15-8-2005 by deltaboy]

I love how the letter writer complains we are not hearing the whole truth about Iraq, and then uses a spam e-mail to prove their point! All the chain-letter e-mails in the world doesn't make something a fact, no matter how much you may wish it to be so.

So then which do you believe, cureme? Do you believe that the main stream media has been fair in covering both the good and the bad in Iraq, or do you believe there is nothing good happening in Iraq?

Or is it that you agree with the original post, but want to try to downplay it and attack the source to maintain the impression that the war in Iraq is a repeat of 'Nam?

Originally posted by junglejake
This is a nice source for some information that doesn't "sell" in the MSM: iraqthemodel.blogspot.com...

Junglejake, that blog belongs to an Iraqi named Mohammed, whose family, as with himself, was tortured, etc. by the Saddam regime.


As to the topic, one can best be sure that if the news is not negative or showing a bad light on what is transpiring in Iraq, that it will not be picked up by the anti-war mainstream media. They know it, as do many within this site, despite their political leanings or views of this war.




seekerof

No doubt there is investment in Iraq but at what cost?

Anyone notice that all the new fire-engines and trucks etc are American, I'm sure the Schools are being kitted out with American products too!.

If Iraq had freedom of choice re new investment presumably they'd buy Japanese / Korean like most other countries in that region - Iraqi oil is being diverted to pay US companies for 2nd rate kit that couldn't be sold otherwise - that's the other side of the 'good' news stories.

SeekerOf, this may be the first time, but I don't follow what you're saying. I know that blog, along with Desert Smink, are both personal accounts of what's going on in Iraq, but from what I've read they've been fair. They talk about both the good and the bad. All I see on the news these days, even that evil, horrible, biased Fox News, is the bad news coming out of Iraq. This many soldiers died today, this impeded progress towards a soverign Iraqi nation, this was exposed in congress, etc. However, they don't talk about the schools being built, about the humanitarian efforts, soldier's interactions with the individual Iraqis, or even the horrible attrocities done by our enemy, such as Desert Smink's tale of the little girl who was killed because she accepted some candy from him. None of that makes the press here or in any other country's online papers that I read. So, I have to go to blogs for the other news that just isn't important enough to get coverage. You know, the stuff that doesn't make one think America has no hope in Iraq.

And your second paragraph made my head explode...

When the "mainstream media" was acting like a cheerleader for this invasion and occupation, I didn't hear any complaints. Now that they are reporting what you don't like, all of the sudden they are bias and full of lies? I mean, geez louise!

Were they wrong during the lead-up to war, when they supported the invasion? Or are they wrong now, that they see things are going wrong in Iraq?

Originally posted by curme
When the "mainstream media" was acting like a cheerleader for this invasion and occupation, I didn't hear any complaints. Now that they are reporting what you don't like, all of the sudden they are bias and full of lies? I mean, geez louise!

Were they wrong during the lead-up to war, when they supported the invasion? Or are they wrong now, that they see things are going wrong in Iraq?

Nah, I don't think the original was right, either. Personally, I like all sides of an issue to be covered before I form an opinion. If I just weatched the news every night and didn't look elsewhere for other information, I would be convinced America is about to fall to our honorable and resolute terrorist enemies. All good and all bad are both terrible ways to deliever the news. There must be a balance. So they were wrong then and now. Paint the whole picture, not just the parts that will draw attention to your opinion.

... And you never answered my question...

Originally posted by junglejake
So then which do you believe, cureme? Do you believe that the main stream media has been fair in covering both the good and the bad in Iraq, or do you believe there is nothing good happening in Iraq?

Or is it that you agree with the original post, but want to try to downplay it and attack the source to maintain the impression that the war in Iraq is a repeat of 'Nam?

Fair? Yes, I do believe, for the most part, they have been fair. Both sides get upset at the coverage, so they must be reporting a medium. Some people on the left or right see the center as off course. But the very nature of being unobjective is reporting what you don't like. You pose a loaded question, that the media never reports the good. If you watch a half-hour of you local news at 11, you probably won't see the 'good'. As well as airplanes that don't crash when they land.

If you read the New York Times, you will see the good reported. Maybe not on the first page, but that is the nature of 'news'.

.
If you wanted truth in reporting you should have started telling the truth from before this war was started.

Chalabi lied to the Administration, but they didn't challenge it because he was giving them war hawk happy talk. In fact they paid him 340,000.00 USD per MONTH!

The Whitehouse lied about aluminum rocket tube that were unusable in centrifuges. In fact they banned DOE employees from telling that truth to reporters.

The CIA BSed with data that was at least 3 to 5 year out of date and called it a slam dunk.

We are never shown the bloodied burned stinking maggot riden bodies of either Iraqis or Americans. Hunks of dirty human meat stewn across the roads of Iraq.

The tiny mangled children's corpses that only came because candy was being passed out.

You don't even have the cajones to show the spanking clean flag drapped coffins of soldier's corpses.

After you have pumped out enough BS why is it unexpected that people have become numb with all the happy talk?

If you cry wolf enough times,
after a while if the wolf eats you, people just don't care anymore.

If you want people to respond like adults you have to treat them as such.

Infotainment junkies don't care about embassies, they aren't glitzy enough.

What can i say to your whining but, Eat your old second hand BS.
.

I think Bush and Fox news would be all over some achievements in Iraq. The military has a tight leash on journalists so it will be difficult for them to get into these places to confirm these reports. 3100 schools renovated seems a little high, even if it was in America. They probably just slapped some paint on them or some minor things. 3100 real renovations at a time of war with many delays seems too good to be true.

I find it amazing that keyboard conservatives still love to bash the MSM.

Do a little research and find out who owns the MSM. You will be very suprised!

When you find out you will see how stupid youv'e been.

Do your own damn reasearch like I did. I doubt if you will because it's so convienit to have something to blame to support your distorted world views.

Originally posted by whaaa
Do a little research and find out who owns the MSM. You will be very suprised!
When you find out you will see how stupid youv'e been.

Then I guess I'm just too stupid to ignore what the press says and instead focus on who owns them. Having done the research, I suppose this means I'll always be condemned to being stupid, since it's no longer ignorance.

3100 renovated schools does seem high to us, but you have to remember what our mission is in Iraqw. We are trying to win the Iraqi people's trust, and have tons of soldiers there purely for rebuilding efforts. Also, if you look at a map pointing out where the war is still taking place, you'll notice that 90% of Iraq is free from conflict. Therefor, building schools during a war that isn't affecting your city isn't so difficult.

Finally, Slank, do you think that everyone was in on this lie you speak of, including the press?

Sometimes when you lie, steal, and kill there are consequences to be had over it. If not legal repercussions, then at least economic and public approval repercussions. Even if the public doesn't know the whole picture from being lied to so much by their government and the media which helps those lies get to them.

The only way that good stories would be coming out of Iraq is if anything over there was actually good. The facts are in on Iraq. It should have never happened, as many stated before the war took place, and the negative reports coming out of Iraq are the end result of a grand case of criminality that was required to start it.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by heelstone]

So the people of Iraq would have been better off under Saddam? Believe what you will about starting the war, that's irrelevant now. The fact is, we're there, and we have a job to finish. If we walk away, we condemn Iraq to anarchy and terrorist rule. We're there, and I hope we're there to stay until the job is done. That being said, you think that there is no good taking place there, despite the dubious reasoning for going to war?

.
The press has become a pure commerical enterprise anymore.

During the time before and during the early war, they were battling for changing/loosening FCC rules.
They probably did everything in their power to pander to whatever line the Admnistration put out.

So in short yes they have been complicit.
They have allowed their reporters to be embedded with troops, that is a very troubling thing.
They have failed to show the real brutality and horror that war is.
How can you expect Americans to act and think like adults when they are being cocooned like babies?

It is partly the American people that are to blame. We would rather see nice images that provide a false belief in our government rather than be faced with the brutal truth of the pure criminality of it.

Naive American 'You mean people would kill other people just for profits?'
Yes virginia its true.
.