Media caught in Iraq's war of perceptions

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1118/p02s01-woiq.html

Many Americans have seen news coverage as overly negative, but mounting troop deaths test support for war.

By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Just as news footage of Vietnam casualties slowly eroded public backing for that conflict, today's bold headlines on US military deaths in Iraq are revealing a ground truth that is, more swiftly, undercutting domestic support for the Iraq war.

Some polls show that most Americans no longer believe removing Saddam Hussein was worth the loss of US lives; significant majorities now consider the 400-plus US casualties in Iraq "unacceptable."

"We've reached that magic number, and now Americans are asking whether it's worth it or not," says John Zogby of Zogby International, which conducted prewar polls showing that war support would drop below 50 percent if US casualties went into the hundreds.

The stream of bad news is heightening tensions between an American media that feels duty-bound to report US losses in the headlines, and a Bush administration and Pentagon prone to castigating the negative coverage as one-sided.

Newly enforced restrictions on media coverage reflect Washington's sensitivity to public attitudes. At home, reporters are kept at a distance from Iraq servicemens' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery; they are not allowed to photograph caskets returning to Delaware's Dover Air Base. In Iraq, the military has mistakenly fired on journalists, detained them, or confiscated their equipment, leading media organizations to raise protests with the Pentagon.

more

[gratuitous]

1. The poor media!

Reality conflicting with the corrupt Bush administration's official line, whatever shall they do???

I suppose sending correspondents over there to gather information and file reports is out of the question.

[Maeve]

2. sort of like the pet dog

Being trained not to go after that juicy steak because Master says "Sit! Stay!" Oh, the quandray!

Bite 'em, Spot.

[underpants]

5. The media has no one but themselves (collectively) to blame

They not only didn't report on the facts of the case for war they (again collectively) covered for W&Co. in campaign. They are however now giving W some of his comeuppance but it really too little too late.

[54anickel]

3. Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Near the end of the

article:

Republicans in Congress highlighted the poll's finding that 68 percent of Iraqis think Iraq will be a better country in five years. None pointed out, however that most respondents did not attribute that progress to American intervention: Half of Iraqis said the United States would hurt their country over the next five years.

"It was very disturbing to me," says Mr. Zogby. "I haven't accused anyone of lying, but this is what psychologists call 'selective screening,' " he says. "There was very little good news in this poll."

Troop morale is another area where administration statements on Iraq have clashed with what reporters are hearing first hand.

An informal poll of 1,900 service members in Iraq in August by the Pentagon-funded Stars and Stripes newspaper revealed that 49 percent think morale in their units is low - the same percentage who say they are unlikely to reenlist. Nearly a third said the war in Iraq was of "little value" or "not worthwhile at all."

[Q]

4. The media should feel 'duty bound' to tell the truth...

...and nothing more.