This is the question I was faced with in my Writing for the Media class. Here is my response:
Wow. The question of "fairness" in coverage of the Iraq war is an interesting one. There are so many factors to consider in determining what "fair" means. The question can be expanded into problems of state/corporate/self-censorship, it can be spun into a secondary question of "fair to whom?", or even a tertiary (and much larger question) of media's role in democracy. Any individual stance on coverage of the current Iraqi conflict would be altered by all of these actors, but national perception of the purpose of media in democracy is by far the most important.
IMO, the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) is not to be taken lightly, and the SCLM has done just that by tacitly repeating administration talking points, discussing them with empanelled administration apologists, berating dissenters present or not, and all the while they call their repetitions "unbiased coverage".
I believe the most disturbing problems I see with coverage of President Bush's illegal war in Iraq are as follows (in no particular order):
- Continuing reliance on administration code words and Pentagon-approved military-pundits.
- Sporadic concern for (and pictures of) the 100k+ civilians murdered.
- Diminishing contrary reports about all aspects of the run-up to war and its current conduct.
- Refusal to demand accountability from the administration.
I find all four of these issues so troubling that I can't even begin to put them in an order. Whichever problem bothers me most at the moment is usually the "worst." Right now I am concerned about language and framing. Since the first Gulf War (and its important role in cleansing the national conscience of Vietnam) the American media have used Pentagon and Administration "focus-group-approved" terms in describing military actions. "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Enduring Freedom", "spreading democracy" (and its newly minted cousin) "spreading liberty and freedom", "War on Terror", "insurgency", "Axis of Evil" are all words that are phrases chosen by the administration to invoke an emotional response rather than dissection. Let's take one example and examine how it has changed.
Since Bush's inaugural address, the phrase "spreading liberty and freedom" has grown in popularity, at least for the cable news anchors I watch. The phrase used to be "spreading democracy". Why would the administration change the term, almost as if they sent out a system-wide email changing the language, and then spread it through the MSM? My speculation is that the administration wants to prepare the American people for less-than- democratic elections this Sunday. It's not hard to find the approximate number of people who won't be able to vote, but you probably won't hear it on the regular news. An estimated 60-70% of the Iraqi population live around the embattled cities of Fallouja, Mosul, and Baghdad and the chance of their votes being cast are slim. If the election is not representative of Iraqis - Shia, Sunni, Kurd - all Iraqis then even the most loyal Bush supporter might have difficulty believing in its "democracy". But - FREEDOM AND LIBERTY are much harder to pinpoint, and will be very easily obscured once elections are over.
As for the Pentagon-approved military pundits, all the major networks and 24-hour news channels have people on contract who provide "expert opinions" of the military conflict. For many networks (most, I would assume, but I've only read reports of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC) their slate of commentators is approved and occasionally suggested by the Pentagon. CNN was very pleased that their commentators were all suggested and okayed by top Pentagon officials. Therefore we get a tailor-made message direct from the administration... not an impartial account.
Continued minimizing of the Iraqi loss disturbs me. To look at this war as what the Iraqis have gained ("democracy") and what WE have lost is very ethnocentric. News reports highlighting personal stories of soldiers and families coping with their losses are seldom (if ever) contrasted with individual stories of children whose civilian parents were murdered by American troops. When the dearth of personal stories from America's war in Iraq is contrasted with the harrowing stories of children's losses from the tsunami, the difference is even more apparent. For some reason it's more attractive for the American media to discuss a child who's lost both parents to a natural disaster than showing a child who lost both parents to "precision air-strike" dropped by American troops.
To quote Pink Floyd, "Things are not what they seem." Whether you look at the run-up to war or its current prosecution, there are countless occurrences of obfuscation, stonewalling, and outright lying on the part of the administration. I believe the historical record shows that discrepancies between perception and reality in war have been treated very differently by the media. The first concern was for the lives of our troops, and survival of the Administration came later. Now we see this administration getting a "pass" from the media for Abu Gharib, body armour, troop levels, and so many other problems. Whether that is because of self-censorship, corporate ownership, or lazy reporting, I guess we'll never know, but the fact remains that many reporters don't do the digging they used to. A case in point: In 2002 the Bush Administration called off an attack that had a very good chance of killing the "number one insurgent", Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We knew he was "a bad guy" then. When the media talk about al-Zarqawi claiming responsibility for a bombing that killed 12 American soldiers, why don't they say, "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the self-avowed leader of the insurgency, who the Bush Administration refused to attack when given the chance, claims responsibility for the death of these Americans." There are so many examples of the media rolling over for Bush that I could pick dozens. Suffice it to say that far too often, the media promote administration talking points as fact, occasionally (as we've seen lately) taking money from the administration for favourable reporting.
For many historians, the jury is still out on Harry Truman. I like him. The thing I like most about Harry Truman is his policy of accepting responsibility. (He was the president who had the "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk. IMO, if Bush had a sign on his desk, it'd say "What Buck? Didn't I pass some "tax relief" already?") Some of you might be shaking your heads, thinking, "But Kristy, we already had an accountability moment, and Bush was re-elected." That's just the problem. This administration wouldn't have been re-instated had the people known about the secrecy, lies, evasions, and lawbreaking that went on during the first term. The media's responsibility of informing the people about its government isn't a four-year phenomenon, it's a 24/7 commitment. Just a few examples: When the story broke about the missing 800 tons of explosives from Al-Quaquaa, the media pretty much accepted the Administration's placing the blame on the soldiers in the field rather than tracking down the order and then giving the person who wrote it a grilling. Rather than FIRING Robert Novak for leaking Valerie Plame's name, he's still employed - and anchors all over America shake their heads while the two people who wrote secondary stories are threatened with jail. The MSM don't call for Novak's head and still, they say they have principles. I don't care how powerful the man is. He wrote the first story, he should be in trouble. (Now, I know it sounds like I'm letting the Administration off the hook, but I'm not. I want Dick Cheney or whoever did the leaking put in jail, too.) During the Scott Peterson trial, we heard updates every afternoon, complete with the appropriate background information to give those updates context, for those viewers who might not have heard. Political reporting isn't often treated that way, at least not the things that matter. We had extensive reports on security at the inauguration, history lessons on how Bush's parties would shape up, and diagrams and drawings for how everything would look. (Even CNN ran investigative reports on Bush's parties in the context of Presidential History.) We've still not had any extensive reporting on Condoleeza Rice's evasions in committee. IMO, Barbara Boxer did what the American media should have done for years - call Condi out when she contradicted herself, the president, or common knowledge. I'm not saying that the reporting should be trash-talking, screaming head, Crossfire-style punditry. What should happen are gentle, delicate reminders (and stronger, if needed) of where our heads of state try to evade the truth and it is up to the media to do it.
I guess you can tell from my tirade that I don't think coverage of Iraq is fair. I think it's riddled with conservative bias, corporate corruption, and both state and self-censorship. As we've discussed, reporting is all about access. You want to get as close to first person as you can, to be able to do your job properly. When reporters treat their subjects harshly (even if they're telling the truth), they're less likely to get the story, and they'd probably lose future access to the source. It is important to take any coverage of a subject and determine not only "what did this source `get' by talking to this reporter" but also "what does this reporter, agency, network, or company `get' by reporting this story in this fashion."