On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War this week, President Bush asked the country for patience.
Can a free press be patient, patriotic and effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Virginia Tech/In Memoriam
"We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness ... We will prevail ..." -- Nikki Giovanni, University Distinguished Professor, poet, activist
14 comments:
Patience: A free press may be critical, but it certainly has to be patient. One fundamental problem with U.S. journalism is that it tends to isolate problems without proposing solutions. Few quick fixes exist for many problems of today.
Patriotic: The U.S. press is one, if not the only, business protected by an amendment to the Constitution. (Some would argue that the Second Amendment keeps gun manufactuers in business, but I digress. I am not one of them).
I should hope patriotism is part of the agenda. Many stories center on enforcing the Bill of Rights that deal with privacy (Fourth Amendment), due process (Fifth Amendment), and fair trial (the Sixth and Seventh Amendments).
Effective: I am not entirely certain how effectiveness ties into patience and patriotism, but I think that effectiveness may be the most important of the triad. Effectiveness is clearly where the U.S. media are having some difficulties.
For example, a reporter called me last week to taIk about the future of the New York Times. I think the once-venerable newspaper is so badly out of touch with almost all aspects of American life, it is difficult to know where to start.
I think my most important recommendation to the reporter was that the Times must refocus its efforts on covering its own backyard in order to flourish. The Times has worried more about the world and Washington than the communities of the city. For example, a front-page story this week focused on the growing number of infants among the wealthy of Manhattan. That may be a trend, but a specious story at best, imho, for the front-page of a newspaper that touts itself as the nation's leading outlet. At the some time, the managing editor chided his reporters for failing to cover the Walter Reed Hospital crisis simply because the Washington Post got the story first. That's exactly what happened with Watergate--a couple of young reporters at the Post used a lot more shoe leather than the reporters at the Times.
If you look at the content of most U.S. media outlets, they have drifted away from connections with their communities. Many potential readers and viewers look at the media outlet and cannot find much there about specific peoples and communities. Those people, particularly young people, are the future of any media outlet. I don't know too many young people who find much of interest in the daily journal or broadcast.
I suggested another solution to the reporter who asked me about the Times: Hire a bunch of twenty-somethings and put them in positions of power if the media really want to reach out to young readers and viewers. A bunch of grayhairs like me don't really know what young people want to read and listen to. I don't think anyone at the Times or CBS News came up with Google, YouTube, or Facebook. CBS came up with Katie Couric! That hasn't exactly been an effective move, but it surely requires patience.
Professor Harper, for both personal and professional reasons, I couldn't agree more with your suggestion for The Times and really the newspaper industry as a whole. The manner in which new (read: young) consumers are pursued in mass media is akin to asking Adolph Rupp how to recruit black basketball players or John Belushi what makes a funny female comic. They don't know and, until the question hit them in the pocket, the old guard did not seem to care much either.
Insofar as patience is concerned, I sometimes wonder how much of the isolation of events and quick fix spin on issues has to do with public demand. All the news you need in X number of minutes has been a successful sell line and this is a country whose major news broadcasts included segments like "The World Minute." Depth and patience seem like niche markets at best in the contemporary news media.
Still, tying back into the strategy of capturing new readers and reviving the function of the press (which, as you noted, is inextricable with ideas related to public discourse and effective democracy), I think it's time to consider how the media can service different audiences. Now more than ever we have a variety of media and voices that can reach an even broader array of news consumers.
There is no question that the rising medium is the Web for news, but how we wield its power is a question yet to be settled. Again, not to tout ourselves too highly, this is an area in which young journalists making more important decisions could benefit the industry. Observe the tech industry itself, it has produced more millionaires under thirty than any other area I can think of in our nation's history.
News judgment is also affected by a shift in the status quo of who is a journalist of influence. The questions asked and the pursuit of answers have grown a bit stagnant and detached as you note in your anecdote. Let's get a journalism workforce that is not just pleased to address the question of moment, but content only when the answers of an era are illuminated.
To ask the American citizens for patience is pushing the envelope. The American citizens have sat and watched our country reap havoc for an unknown cause. And even those who support the troops have no idea what they are really supporting. In fact, most pro-war idealists I know believe that they themselves by supporting the ideas and methods of the government go back to reinstating the fundemental ideas of America. What fundemental ideas they are refferring to I haven't the slightest clue. To me it seems as if the supporters of the war and the president say the same cock and bull everytime they are faced with the question, why? This question has been unanswered for the last four years, and its been four years to long. Patience is pushing it Georgy.
I do wonder if patience should play a role in a press that is independent of a government that is asking for patience. But that begs the question: does the press manipulate the public? My answer: sure it does. But in this particular case, has the press turned a public once sympathetic toward the war into a public overwhelmingly fed up with it? And if so, are they simply stating the facts?
When it comes to an effective press, patriotism is not the act of supporting the current administration, but rather putting into action what is best for your country. If the press does indeed shed light on the unpleasant details of the Iraq War, making us aware of a country slipping into catastrophic civic conflict, then it is an act of patriotism. If our tax dollars are paying for such a disaster, if our men are dying, if our leader has yet to create a plan for withdrawal (asking instead for patience and calling for an additional 20,000+ troops)—then the public deserves to know.
As others have commented here, alternatives to mainstream media have become increasingly popular. Voices once unable to reach the masses are now achieving popularity (some on the subculture level), spurring grassroots movements that then make waves throughout the country. The advancements of information technology have made the press more effective, though our abundance of choices makes it harder to filter through the newsworthy and just plain worthless.
I agree with others who have already posted, most specifically in the fact that we have already been patient enough. When President Bush asks the country to be patient, he asks the families who are directly affected - the families of the soldiers - to be patient. I cannot imagine being a mother or wife and hearing, 'please be patient' while hoping every day that my child or spouse is alive. It takes a lot of nerve to ask the country for patience when we have spent billions of dollars that could have been spent on important issues here, as well as when we have seen no positive outcomes from this war. Furthermore, there is no end in sight. We have been told lies, and asked for chances to be given already... enough is enough. As for the press, my current wish in direct relation to this issue, is that the press as a whole would take it up a notch. The press should be a watchdog to the government, I have always been a proponent of this role. In this case it would be extremely helpful for the citizens of this country if the press would really look into what the President's words really mean. Line up the facts of the war and call for people to speak up about their beliefs. In this way, the press couldn't be patient. Asking the press to be patient is like blatantly asking them to NOT do their job. Journalists should be directly on top of things - the first to know and the first to tell. They should not be waiting something out, just because the Commander in Chief asked them to. Journalists need to present the information so that the citizens of the United States are able to decide whether or not this war is worth it anymore - and whether or not they should be patient.
Yes, the media could easily respect the wishes of the President Bush and be patient. They could keep reporting on the tragic happenings in Iraq and trust Bush's words. However, in my view, this would be a huge mistake. The Bush administration has already made several key blunders concerning the Iraq War. They unjustly entered in Iraq and have been covering up their failures in the region for the last four years. It would be even a bigger mistake for the media remain patient with Bush and his long-term war plan.
The media is the true voice of the people and they need to protest this war and bring the war to an end. At the same time, the U.S needs to help the Iraqi people as well as maintain the well being of the American troops. The President obviously does not have the strength or courage to end the war. Yes, it would be be somewhat of a moral victory for the Iraqi insurrgents but the benefits are much greater thant the costs of pulling out of Iraq.
I recently saw a show on ABC News called, "Another Vietnam War." This war in Iraq has certainly been labeled this before. We as a country are taught to learn from our mistakes and look to history as a guide. However, the Bush administration is more concerned with their image than saving the lives of thousands of American soldiers.
The media remains somewhat divided on Bush's plea for patience in Iraq. For instance, last week the "Pittsburgh Post Gazette" quoted that, "It's simply not clear what Bush hopes to achieve, by continuing to pretend that this war is worth fighting. It isn't." Opposingly, the "Washington Post" said, "blaming Bush is the easy way out. They went on to quote that, "what matters most is doing the best we can to help Iraq and safeguard U.S interests in a vital region."
Overall, patience is definitely not a virtue when looking at the Iraq War. The press can only be patriotic if they are helping the express the views of the American people. I think that patience has run out and people want a new plan and a new leader in place. I guess we'll have to wait till the 2008 Presidential Elections.
Victor,
The comparison between Iraq and the Vietnam is a huge stretch. Slightly more than 3,200 soldiers have died in Iraq, or roughly three soldiers per day over four years.
Although any death is regrettable, a total of 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam during roughly eight years of active battle, or roughly 20 soldiers per day.
Furthermore, the military tactics were significantly different given jungle warfare versus desert warfare. Also, the Viet Cong and NLA's tactics were different from the insurgents in Iraq, and the Vietnamese could be more clearly called nationalists.
I would caution anyone, particularly journalists, to toss this comparison around without a hard look at the facts and the history of the two countries and the two wars. Just my nickel.
Christopher Harper
While it may be a difficult comparison on some levels, I think the notion of using deaths as a mitigating factor for a war that has not had a clearly defined purpose is spurious.
Though the reasons are in some cases contested, the number of injured and disabled soldiers coming out of Iraq is, by even conservative estimates, exponentially greater than in wars past. Where we saw two to three serious injuries for every death, we are now seeing 10-15 times the number of injuries as deaths depending on the parameters and source (I believe Newsweek placed it at a 16 to 1 ratio).
This is in several ways more costly. The least controversial way is that care benefits are costly in terms of resources (the ability allocate adequate care and professionals) and funding.
On a social level, it would certainly be inconsiderate to say that someone injured or disabled is a burden, but it does bring to light the overlooked costs of war.
You yourself assign readings on how foreign correspondents suffer severe mental anguish after covering combat. Imagine the level of counseling, treatment and other services many veterans must need in addition to the disfigured, disabled and otherwise physically wounded soldiers returning from Iraq.
So, while patience may be a request worth heeding, a clear direction is a demand that no one can afford to neglect.
Andrew, you make a valid point. While asking for patience is a reasonable request, the more important concern is creating a clearer strategy for Iraq. Bush continues to send more troops into the region, yet American support for the occuption keeps falling.
If we are going to be patient with this quagmire in Iraq than a solid plan should be in place.
The numbers really speak for themselves. According to the Pew Research Center, "By a 59% to 33% margin, Americans say they would like their congressional representative to vote for a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2008.
So, Bush needs to face reality with the Iraq War. He needs to listen to the American public, the people that voted him into office for 8 full years. If he does this, than maybe i'll be more patient with Bush's requests.
Andrew and Victor,
Is your position that the U.S. shoud leave Iraq within a specified time and relatively soon? If so, what you do think will happen? Or, is that consideration irrelevant?
I will never forget the day that U.S. troops invaded Iraq. It was the first day of my final spring break as an undergraduate and I had decided to spend it in Green Bay, Wisconsin with my father--an ardent Republican. He drove down to Madison to pick up my sister and I, and I remember being incredibly frustrated by two facts: my father’s insistence upon listening to Right Wing radio the whole two and a half hours back to GB and his assertion that we were liberating a country oppressed by tyrannical maniac—as if no other countries did.
By the time we reached his house, one U.S. soldier had already died. I remember that because they interviewed his mother by phone on TV. She was very well spoken, but my memory of the call doesn’t extend beyond that. The only other thing I remember is that over and over and over again members of the administration continued to stress that this was to be a “quick war.” As if any war ever could be. As if the word ‘war’ can somehow be mitigated, modified. A quick war does not mean that everyone in it will experience quick deaths, quick injuries, and quick chaos—but it seemed to me that that was what they were trying to suggest.
Four years later, Saddam is dead, the country is roiling with turmoil and Bush refuses to begin to pull out. And I am still wondering if anyone in the White House ever even bothered to watch “Lawrence of Arabia”--a movie that in three hours would have effectively dissuaded anyone from condescending to try to ‘fix’ anything in the Middle East. Bush asks for patience, but I keep wondering if this isn’t just another ‘quick’ band-aid for a ‘quick’ war gone horribly awry.
Professor Harper, my position is that we should first do what we did not do effectively when we invaded Iraq and implemented what I'll term a loosely a central government and that is to set well-defined goals for our mission there.
What troubles me is that Iraq was a rather tenuous state prior to our arrival and has become even less stable since our occupation began. So, that has to be the first question, are we attached to a unified Iraq? If we state that as an aim, I am skeptical that an infinite occupation could achieve the goal. The Kurds have long sought sovereignty and as we have seen Shi'a and Sunni factions are do not make ideal neighbors.
Many have considered that immediate withdraw would lead to a split in three, but I wonder if this is not an inevitable outcome of any effort in the country. Iran is interested in a weak Iraq no matter what the outcome and, as a result, would likely exploit religious ties with the Shi'a of Iraq. The remaining Sunnis would be vulnerable to radicals with money; notably Al Qaeda.
It's a very tangled past, present and future, you know that much better than I. I do, however, question the value of prolonged occupation. To me, this war cannot be judged as a success or a failure because it had no clear cut intent. It can only be seen for what it is, harm on a mass scale. The human and infrastructural costs of the war are not to be downplayed because American deaths are relatively low. This now, to me, becomes an exercise in harm reduction. If that means greater or prolonged troop presence, I am unopposed, if that means immediate withdrawl, I am also without any objection. This is not a left/right or pacificist/militarist argument, or at least it should not be. Rather, it should be a question of what is best for both nations in the long run.
Post a Comment