Media Matters and Peter Daou have done some terrific work lately highlighting the latest Iraq defense embraced by the Bush White House and its allies: it’s the media’s fault. To be sure, this isn’t exactly a new argument, but it now seems to be the principal defense for the deteriorating conditions in Iraq. The president and his supporters are, apparently, left with nothing else.
What’s equally interesting, though, is the forcefulness with which reporters are fighting back against this argument.
CNN’s Jack Cafferty seemed to get the ball rolling late last week after Howard Kurtz suggested that the blame-the-media argument has merit. Cafferty wasn’t amused.
“This is nonsense, it’s the media’s fault and the news isn’t good in Iraq. The news isn’t good in Iraq. There’s violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn’t turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it’s our fault? I beg to differ.”
Cafferty is more of a commentator than reporter, of course, so it’s even more notable that journalists in Iraq, or who have recently returned, are also pushing back against the preferred GOP meme.
* The Washington Post’s Steve Fainaru: “The job of soldiering over there is incredibly difficult. I have tremendous respect for those guys. The [administration’s] criticism completely misses the point. Iraq is on the verge of civil war. Where’s the good news?”
* The New York Times’ Jeffrey Gettleman: “If this all sounds depressing, it is. That’s how people here feel. I’ve been looking hard, but in two weeks I haven’t found an Iraqi optimist…. It is difficult to communicate just how violent Baghdad has become.”
* Knight Ridder’s Clark Hoyt: “Baghdad, Iraq’s capital and most populous city, and the Sunni Triangle to its northwest are hellishly dangerous. And that lack of security has overshadowed everything else as Iraqis struggle to build a democratic future.”
* The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks: “Blaming the media is like blaming the rain.”
Slate’s John Dickerson said reporters can’t hear the good news in Iraq because “the bombs are too loud.”
[B]ombs and charred bodies have a certain unspinnable quality. That’s why when there is a suicide attack in Israel, presidents, including this one, issue special statements of denunciation and concern. No matter how many upbeat stories one might hear about better electricity or rebuilt schools in Iraq, it’s never going to balance out the horror of violence. And it shouldn’t. To talk about press bias in response to questions about violence suggests an equivalence between dead soldiers and new hospitals. An increase in the number of positive stories is not going to rebuild support for Bush’s policies. […]
Press-bashing only highlights the administration’s insufficient response to the underlying problem. When the basement is flooded, no one wants to hear complaints about not getting credit for the shiny new roof.
It’s also interesting how journalists seem anxious to help the administration out with reporting on “good” news — working the ref is a successful strategy — but conditions simply won’t allow reporters to help Bush out. ABC was going to do a feature on a new Iraqi sitcom, until they arrived and learned that the producer had been assassinated. NBC was filming the opening of a new school when a bomb went off.
At this point, it seems most reporters are not only sick of the violence and life-threatening conditions, they’re nearly as sick of Bush blaming them for the public’s frustration over this disaster. Who can blame them?