The media's free ride in Iraq

By Matt Sanchez

The New Republic published entries from the "Baghdad Diarist," a soldier who was supposedly reporting on the realities of being in Baghdad. The "diarist" was proven to be a fraud, while the liberal media claimed even if the story was fake, it could have been true and that's what counts. Discerning facts from fiction is an obstacle the media trips over daily.

If the media are the eyes, ears and voice of a democracy, our nation is currently deaf, dumb and blind.

The conflict in Iraq is complicated, and yet the media has dumbed-down that complexity by communicating in flashy breaking-news banners with "expert analysis" that is, in fact, amateur opinion given by activist glamour correspondents whose names are synonymous with their news programs.

Take the main issue in Iraq: creating a sustainable economy out of a formerly totalitarian one-product, socialist state. The complexity of building (not rebuilding, since much of the "damage" was simply the norm in Saddam's Iraq) is marred in a politically driven game of gotcha, where an activist press plays hide-and-seek with the facts to pander to niche audiences while pretending objectivity and professionalism.

Instead of reporting, analysis and theory, we get political slogans and clichs. "No war for oil." "No military solution to Iraq's political problem." "Failed strategy." "A quagmire in Iraq." Any of these bumper stickers is fine as a starting point, but not as an all-encompassing conclusion, especially without some in-depth scrutiny.

After spending time with the mainstream media, it's not hard to understand why the coverage coming from Iraq is, as Staff Sgt. Rodriguez from the 4-9 cavalry from Texas put it, "Completely wrong ... in my opinion."

Unlike any other player on the board, the press has no oversight, no mandate, few penalties and even fewer consequences. In Fallujah, a suicide bomber killed one victim, but an "unidentified police officer" reported over 20 dead and just as many casualties. Because there are "not enough" reporters on the ground, newsrooms want to cover the war "on the cheap." Many bureaus have outsourced both their reporting and standards to third-party "stringers" whose spectacular videos of explosions and inflated body counts have shown up on both jihadist recruiting sites and American television screens, simultaneously. These hacks-for-hire literally get more bucks for each bang. In Ramadi, I met a man who worked for al-Qaida as a propagandist, while moonlighting at Reuters, AFN and CNN in the same capacity.

In an arm-wrestling match between progress and propaganda, the media has conflicted values when covering Iraq. A successful insurgent will always get more recognition than a successful infantryman – no matter how many successful infantrymen there are. The reward of media coverage for bad behavior has a Pavlovian effect on attention-seeking terrorists.

The media can plea that Iraq is unsafe, and they can blame the military for not "securing their right to cover events freely." But that gives a lot of responsibility to the military and questions the autonomy of the press. In other words, is there a military solution for guaranteeing the rights of a free press? In Iraq, the answer is a resounding "of course," but a press in denial is opposed to admitting that it's not the military impeding their reporting, but the failed strategy of a compromised media campaign. Yes, they should have factored in that terrorists might be hostile to their presence and indifferent to their "freedom of expression."

Have the media made mistakes in coverage? Of course, but in an industry where some claim to be "keeping them honest," there's no penalty for false or misleading reports. Accountability is as desirable as rotting stacks of last week's newspaper. So, who watches the watchmen?

After I wrote an article critical of the media coverage in Iraq, I got a concerned e-mail from a Barnard graduate working with the Washington Post – an opinion-shaping newspaper. She saw my piece and insisted reporters "go through great lengths to get the story right." This may be true, but when the press gets it wrong, there is no story; they just move on. No long exposes on cover-ups, no trick questions for journalists or grilling hearings.

I distinctly recall a newscaster saying, "The Sunni Triangle will never settle for an American occupational force." I just spent a month in Ramadi, in the soul of the "Sunni Triangle" (a made-up name marketed by the New York Times, just like "Shock and Awe"). In Ramadi, I saw crowds of Sunnis thanking Marines for helping to expel al-Qaida and asking for more help from the American military. Will the media reflect on earlier statements and analyze what was previously reported, or will it simply move on?

Today, information is a commodity as valuable as the items thrown into Wal-Mart's weekly bargain bin – merchandise to be picked over and looked at to see if there's something both useful and cheap.

The Baghdad Diarist – a story I helped to debunk with simple facts and cited statements – is dismissed by the editors and readers of The New Republic because they have plenty of product to drown out criticism. Besides, the TNR readership really didn't care about the particulars; they just wanted a story to support their worldview.

As I read much of the Western press, I wonder, whose side are these guys on? Of course, the answer is that they're supposed to remain neutral. In Iraq, I suspect we'll find that neutrality right next to the weapons of mass destruction.