I suppose by now, the term "objective journalism" is not merely quaint but becoming an oxymoron. This article from American Journalism Review is a good example.
AJR is something of a trade publication written by and for journalists, so, I guess I should forgive the writers and editors for letting their masks of objectivity slip so badly. But the article titled Whatever Happened to Iraq? would be funny in its foul moodiness if it weren't such an accurate depiction of how MSM types genuinely think about the war. In short, they are distraught that Americans haven't forced an end to the Iraq War by now. And, more germaine to reporting, they are deeply saddened that news coverage of the war has dwindled.
Well, I'm disheartened that coverage of the war has waned, as well. But my concern is that, as the war for Americans has gotten better, reporters and editors have lost interest. This video of what coverage of D-Day would have looked like had the modern media covered it is sadly accurate:
The AJR article is filled with quotes from reporters and editors complaining that the corporate overlords have demanded they produce articles that readers want to read (i.e., more local news, less national and international news) and use less money (foreign correspondents can be expensive).
Ellen Hume, research director at the MIT Center for Future Civic Media and a former journalist, believes the decline in Iraq news could be linked to a larger issue — profits. "The problem doesn't seem to be valuing coverage of the war; it's more about the business model of journalism today and what that market requires," Hume says.
And when the writers weren't blaming those nasty corporate owners, they were blaming readers.
The public also got a scolding for its meager interest in a controversial conflict that is costing taxpayers about $12.5 billion a month, or nearly $5,000 a second, according to some calculations.
and
During the early stages of shock and awe, Americans were glued to the news as Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad and sweat-soaked Marines bivouacked in his luxurious palaces. It was a huge story when President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, and declared major combat operations were over.
By March 2008, a striking reversal had taken place. Only 28 percent of Americans knew that 4,000 military personnel had been killed in the conflict, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Eight months earlier, 54 percent could cite the correct casualty rate.
But at least some people were honest about why they aren't writing about the war.
The reader representative for the San Francisco Chronicle doesn't think placement of stories about Iraq makes much difference. He reasons that five years in, most readers have formed clear opinions about the war. They're not likely to change their minds one way or another if a story runs on page one or page three, says Dick Rogers. "The public has become accustomed to the steady drumbeat of violence out of Iraq. A report of 20 or 30 killed doesn't bring fresh insight for a lot of people."
And, believe me, the new breed of journalist is most interested in what used to be known as editorializing--injecting opinion into stories--versus reporting what happens.
Throughout the article are two competing emotions: frustration that more people don't care ("Americans might care if they could witness more of the human toll.") and desperation to ensure that readers understand we are losing in Iraq ("grueling war gone sour," "bleak sameness has settled into accounts," "bloody and seemingly endless conflict"). But overall, the tone suggests that journalists should be ashamed that they haven't been able to force America out of Iraq already by providing that relentless drumbeat of negativity which influenced so many so early.
|