"Bad Reporting in Baghdad"

According to Jonathan Foreman, things are going much better in Baghdad than some folks would like us to think:

.... But you won't see much of this on TV or read about it in the papers. To an amazing degree, the Baghdad-based press corps avoids writing about or filming the friendly dealings between U.S. forces here and the local population -- most likely because to do so would require them to report the extravagant expressions of gratitude that accompany every such encounter. Instead you read story after story about the supposed fury of Baghdadis at the Americans for allowing the breakdown of law and order in their city.

Well, I've met hundreds of Iraqis as I accompanied army patrols all over the city during the past two weeks and I've never encountered any such fury (even in areas that were formerly controlled by the Marines, who as the premier warrior force were never expected to carry out peacekeeping or policing functions). There is understandable frustration about the continuing failure of the Americans to get the water supply and the electricity turned back on, though the ubiquity of generators indicates that the latter was always a problem. And there are appeals for more protection (difficult to provide with only 12,000 troops in a city of 6 million that has not been placed under strict martial law). But there is no fury.

Given that a large proportion of the city's poorest residents have taken part in looting the Baathist elite's ministries, homes, and institutions, that should tell you something about the sources preferred by the denizens of the Palestine Hotel (the preferred home of the press corps). Indeed it's striking that while many of the troops I've accompanied find themselves feeling some sympathy for the inhabitants of "Typhoid Alley" and other destitute neighborhoods and their attempts to obtain fans, furniture, TVs, etc., the press corps often seems solidly on the side of those who grew fat under the Saddam regime. (That said, imagine the press hysteria that would have greeted a decision by U.S. troops to use deadly force against the looters and defend the property of the city's elite.) Even in the wealthiest neighborhoods -- places like the Mansoor district, where you still see intact pictures of Saddam Hussein -- people seem to be a lot more pro-American than you could ever imagine from reading the wires.

Perhaps this is just another case of reporters with an anti-American or antiwar agenda. Perhaps living in Saddam's totalitarian Baghdad has left some of the press here with a case of Stockholm syndrome. It may also be a byproduct of depending on interpreters and fixers who were connected to or worked with the approval of the Saddam regime. And you cannot underestimate the herd instinct that can take over when you have a lot of media folk in a confined area for any length of time. But whatever the cause, the result has been very selective reporting....

And they wonder why we think mainstream media is biased.

(Thanks, Kathryn.)

P.S. I called this, Feb. 19:

.... Third, mainstream media will do its best to give as little attention as (in)humanly possible to the real, actual results of the liberation of the Iraqi people. Oh, you'll know all about it — because FNC, and The Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, and Jim Quinn, and websites and weblogs galore will be covering the good news as much as possible. (And, maybe, The Washington Post, too.) But Dan, and Tom, and Peter, and The New York Times, and the Associated Press — and everybody in MM who follows their lead — will drop the Iraqi Liberation story as soon as possible. After they have searched high and low from North to South and East to West to find as much anti-American sentiment in post-Saddam Iraq as you could find in one city block in Hollywood....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 05/03/03 10:49:50 PM
Categorized as Media.