Many of us have taken the media to task for their "coverage" - some would call it facilitating - of the many foibles of this administration. In particular, it seems the likes of ABC News and The Washington Post have come under scrutiny for some questionable editorial decisions.
The New York Times has also been criticized and among other things the Libby fiasco has done, it has reminded us of Judith Miller's (not small) role in the drumbeats leading up to the Iraq debacle, even as the "Kristol-nacht" wing of the right tries to repeat history in Iran.
Yes, today's editorial calling for withdrawal is hopeful, and Frank Rich often tosses a gem, though it can be said he's preaching to the choir. But with a new disturbing trend emerging of late, I think we should take note of how the Times' new public editor has emphatically responded.
Just a few weeks ago, an item by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo caught my eye. In short, it noted that an alarming amount of media outlets had recently taken to uncritically utilizing the administration's characterization of virtually all Iraqi insurgents as "al Qaeda." Reading with a bit more of a critical eye thereafter, it became very evident to me that there was fire to accompany this smoke.
The fruits of the efforts to bring this to light can be seen in today's piece by Times public editor Clark Hoyt, Seeing Al Qqeda Around Every Corner. In it, Hoyt notes not only the proliferation of the trend but, amazingly, apparently makes inroads toward fixing it, at least at the NYT.
A quick detour - I did do a quick search to see if this had been diaried here and didn't see anything, but after starting to write I did come across this Glenn Greenwald piece that cites this piece as part of the bigger picture. (As I'm a big fan of his work, I'd say it's worth a read, as always.)
To be honest, this is the first I've seen of Hoyt's work, but I'd say I find it encouraging. He cuts right to the point in asserting that "President Bush and the United States Military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villian on the battlefield: Al Qaeda."
(All emphasis mine)
Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, "We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq." The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.
In just graf number three, he cuts to the heart of the matter:
Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.
But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.
He goes on to outline the many nuances in explaining the real situation in describing those responsible but he notes not only the trend, but the seemingly obvious reason behind it.
There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of the challenges facing the United States military and that overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there. While a president running out of time and policy options may want to talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of uniting the country behind him, journalists have the obligation to ask tough questions about the accuracy of his statements.
Hoyt does not stop there, however, bringing his concerns to the editors in question and receiving not just responses, but quite possibly results. While the editors quoted - Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet and foreign editor Susan Chira - defend the paper's coverage overall, there is actually an acknowledgment of this particular problem and a seeming commitment to address it.
I (Hoyt) went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today’s Iraq...
But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes "great pride in the whole of our coverage" but acknowledged that the paper had used "excessive shorthand" when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. "We’ve been sloppy," she said. She and other editors started worrying about it, Chira said, when the American military began an operation in mid-June against what it said were strongholds of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.
Perhaps not earth-shattering, but having them aware of it is a start. And if, in fact, the Times does lead on this matter others are sure to follow.
It's a start, although as Hoyt himself concedes in conclusion:
It’s a good move. I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.
Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.
At the very least, I think it is well worth letting Clark Hoyt know our thoughts, as it appears he's actually listening.