The other danger of biased media coverage

I don't think there's any doubt that the media is obsessed with Abu Ghraib. While the abuse was a terrible thing, the coverage of these childishly cruel stunts has been greater than anything since the first moon landing. And not being content to just lead the news with any minor update to the story, the media is even inserting Abu Ghraib into stories that have nothing to do with it. Best of the Web is running a series on these strange sightings, calling it the "press corps' porn addiction".

And the rest of the news from Iraq is similarly negative. The spin put on every story -- even stories that should be considered good news, like the negotiated end to fighting in Najaf -- is that Iraq is drifting out of control, that the Americans have whacked a hornets' nest with a stick and will suffer the consequences.

A number of commentators (such as Mort Kondracke) have worried that this constant drumbeat of despair will sap the will of the coalition, lead to a withdrawal, and leave Iraq to be ripped apart by goons like Sadr. It's a real danger.

The rationale for this negative slant to coverage is depressingly obvious. In war, the only story a modern reporter is familiar with is Vietnam. So they all follow the script as if the ending is already determined. Throw into the mix a President that rubs the press the wrong way and you have the recipe for the amplification of the bad news, and the ignoring of the good. (And yes, there is good news.)

But there's another danger of this biased news coverage that I haven't heard much talk about, possibly because it's more likely to change the attitudes of the supporters of the war, rather than just support the conclusions of the detractors. If the media doesn't start showing a more friendly face of the Muslim world, there's a danger we'll lose any empathy we have with them and will be more likely to regard them simply as the enemy.

Listen to the words of this Iraqi man chosen for a quote by Reuters:

Bush is a scorpion. He is a liar. He is sneaky, making all kinds of promises when he just wants to control Iraq.

And here's the view of the Iraqi people on today's ceasefire, as reported by the Telegraph:

Mohammed Al-Sadri, 23, a former construction worker who has fought for a month against the Americans, said: "I would prefer to keep fighting. The occupiers are still in Iraq. My friends have been martyred and the cause is not yet won. But I will follow Sadr's orders."

Arshed, also 23, a political science student and militiaman, said: "We want victory or martyrdom and we will fight if ordered. They have tanks and helicopters, but we have our faith." On the road to Kufa, the mood was still tense. Iraqi policemen pointed out a sandbagged American sniper position. "They tried to shoot a child yesterday," one said.

I'm sure any reader of news from the Middle East is familiar with this image of the "Arab Street". Angry, seething, unapproachable, and alien. That's the only view we get of the Muslim world, and it washes over us, day after day.

But it's a false one. Most of the people in the Middle East want the same things everyone wants: peace, security, opportunity, and a comfortable life for them and their family. Ali at Iraq the Model explains:

Despite some alleged "Fatwas" and few speeches about “red lines”, most of the political AND religious leaders were calling for withdrawal of *all* armed forces and militias from the holy cities. No one called for jihad, and no one blamed the Americans, except for Sadr followers. There were almost no anti-American demonstrations regarding this issue, at least not any significant ones.

If one is to believe the media and the Arab leaders and Muslim clerics, the only conclusions that can be drawn from such a situation, is that there are no Iraqis in Iraq. The only Iraqis who seem to exist and “care about the Iraqi people” live outside Iraq! I can name in this respect, in addition to the above; the western media, the French, German and Russian governments and the “pacifists”. Otherwise why aren’t the Iraqis going out to the streets in hundreds of thousands to protest against their "oppressors"!?

I guess there are only few answers to this question. It’s either that the majority of Iraqis don’t feel there’s such huge violation that needs to be protested against, or that they are more interested in their daily lives; their jobs and the future of their children than whining about buildings that as holy as they are to them, can not match their care about their jobs and children’s future.

The constant images of people howling for blood makes this hard to remember. But it is so important to remember.

The ironic thing is that the reporters in Iraq that feed this bile into our collective consciousness feel they are on the side of the Iraqi people. They view these few fanatics as legitimate voices of dissent from an oppressed people. Their more sensible audience knows this is not true -- but will they be sensible enough to maintain their empathy for ordinary Iraqis? I hope so.

Posted by Bruce Gottfred at May 27, 2004 10:08 PM | TrackBack