Don't Hate!

A must read:

Why they hate us

This is a belated Fourth of July column (superseded by the state shutdown). The headline isn't a prelude to a column justifying why the Islamists hate Westerners so much that they're pouring into Iraq to kill our soldiers (along with innocent fellow Arabs, including Egyptian diplomats). Or defending the sleeper cells planted to blow up Madrid, London and who knows where next. Rather, it's about why most Americans, particularly soldiers, hate the media.

I decided to become a journalist when I was a soldier. I was in the U.S. Navy in the early and mid-1980s ? "the glory years," as I like to say, a reference to President Ronald Reagan. As part of my duties, I went to some of the world's hot spots.

While sailing in the South China Sea, my ship picked up some refugee boat people on a rickety raft that I wouldn't take out on Como Lake, much less try to float across the Pacific Ocean. One of the survivors, shortly after coming up the accommodation ladder dripping wet, grabbed me (the nearest sailor), hugged me as tightly as his strength would allow, and could only murmur "thank you" through sobs of joy.

I'd then come back to the U.S. and read accounts of places I'd just been ? in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post ?that bore no resemblance to what I'd seen. There was one exception: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I began reading a column called "Thinking Things Over" by Vermont Connecticut Royster, one of the legends of that august page. He would later become a mentor ? a God, really ? and I eventually worked there.

I'm reminded of why I became a journalist by the horribly slanted reporting coming out of Iraq. Not much has changed since the mid-1980s. Substitute "insurgent" for "Sandinista," "Iraq" for "Soviet Union," "Bush" for "Reagan" and "war on terror" for "Cold War," and the stories need little editing. The U.S. is "bad," our enemies "understandable" if not downright "good."

I know the reporting's bad because I know people in Iraq. A Marine colonel buddy just finished a stint overseeing the power grid. When's the last time you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid? Or the new desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings waiting to be blown up.

I also get unfiltered news from Iraq through an e-mail network of military friends who aren't so blinded by their own politics that they can't see the real good we're doing there. More important, they can see beyond their own navel and see the real good we're doing to promote peace and prosperity in the world. What makes this all the more ironic is the fact that the people who are fighting and dying want to stay and the people who are merely observers want to cut and run.

I feel for these soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because I'm sure they're coming home and noticing the same disconnect that I did when I served. Moreover, stories about their families and others who are here and trying to make a difference largely go unreported.

Ever heard of Soldiers' Angels (http://soldiersangels.homestead.com/index.html) or Operation Minnesota Nice (www.operationminnesotanice.com)?

Probably not.

There have been just two mentions of Operation Minnesota Nice by the Twin Cities metro dailies, one a brief in the Pioneer Press and the other a front-page story in the paper across the river. Operation Minnesota Nice collects care packages ? of baby wipes, lip balm, baby powder and other items ? for soldiers serving overseas. Soldiers' Angels does the same thing, mating civilians who maybe don't have a loved one overseas with soldiers who don't have loved ones.

Where's the daily coverage of these groups and others like them?

Moreover, where are the stories on nearly every VFW and American Legion hall that's actively supporting the troops? What about their stories?

Instead, we get Monday's front-page story about a "secret" memo about "emerging U.S. plans" to withdraw troops next year. Why isn't the focus of the story the fact that 14 of 18 Iraqi provinces are stable and the four that aren't are primarily home to the genocidal gang of thugs who terrorized that country for 30 years?

And reporters wonder why they're despised.

Yost is associate editor of the Pioneer Press editorial page. Write him at myost@pioneerpress.com or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101.

As opinion polls and surveys tell us, public faith in the news media is low, and falling. Acknowledging the problem and asking why seems like a fine starting point for a serious discussion on the topic. But the above piece actually singles out a specific group, as the author clearly points out: it's about why most Americans, particularly soldiers, hate the media.

From my experience, that soldiers "hate" the media is true - though dislike or mistrust might be better words. If you were to poll American troops on the question you'd probably get about an 80% "yes" response to "do you hate the media?" Dislike or mistrust would likely raise the number to the upper 90s. But that's a semantic issue - the point is there's a problem. That a journalist who's also a military veteran sees it and writes about it is indeed a good first step.

Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, takes the discussion to another level:

Amazing. Mark Yost, an [editorial page] editor at Knight Ridder, the ONE news outlet which has consistently exposed the lies at the heart of the Iraq invasion and the grim reality of the current occupation, turns on his colleagues.

I can't wait to see how the KR Washington bureau and the KR Iraq contingent reponds to this one!

There he is, guys. Go get him. You owe your readers no less.

Jeff Jarvis:

What is amazing about this is that Lovelady is the managing editor of the friggin' Columbia Journalism Review Daily. You'd think that he would welcome intelligent, reasoned, two-sided discussion about media's coverage of this controverial story. Instead, he acts like the fat kid on the playground egging on the bullies in a fight.

So how about a debate, sirs? I suggest an email debate. I'll be happy to post your responses on Buzzmachine.

First question, if you are willing:

Is American media coverage of the Iraq war balanced? Or do American media harbor an agenda in its coverage -- and if so, what agenda? Do American news media succeed -- or even try -- to present the positive and the negative news coming out of Iraq? Is there an obligation to be balanced? Or do you believe that balance would present an inaccurate picture of the news there?

Jeff Jarvis' proposal unfortunately brings a negative response from Lovelady, part of which follows:

I'll have to decline, on several counts...

...if you think my "snipe" at Romenesko did not address the issues Mark raised -- when in fact I spent my entire letter pointing out that the very specific and detailed Iraq coverage of his OWN newspaper chain puts the lie to his careless accusations -- then you most assuredly would find my stance in any further debate "well, unsatisfying."

Amazing. Mark Yost, an [editorial page] editor at Knight Ridder, the ONE news outlet which has consistently exposed the lies at the heart of the Iraq invasion and the grim reality of the current occupation, turns on his colleagues.

I can't wait to see how the KR Washington bureau and the KR Iraq contingent reponds to this one!

There he is, guys. Go get him. You owe your readers no less.

Lovelady again:

"My guess is that by Monday Mr. Yost will be too busy standing in line outside the St. Paul unemployment office to engage in leisurely Internet debates. Which, frankly, is as it should be. He's a right-wing shill who belittled and betrayed the hundreds of reporters who go into harm's way every day to tell us what the hell is really going on.

Fortunately, - and this is a crucial point - the responses at Romanesko are a bit more fair and balanced then that claim might imply. Though no doubt Lovelady would call them "right-wing shills", give credit to the journalists who offered these insights:

From MARTIN STEIN, A&E editor, Las Vegas Weekly: Dipping into Romenesko?s letters, it seems there?s quite a kerfuffle going on about reporting in Iraq. There is one person reporting on the good news going on there, and in Afghanistan and other parts of the world: Arthur Chrenkoff. I don?t know if he?s a reporter per se. Perhaps he?s just some retired gent who has the time to do things like research and read ? that sort of free time being a scarce commodity among many media professionals.

However clever and true "The Daily Show?s" comment about not reporting on cars that don?t explode may be, it?s equally true (but far less snide) that the media always makes time to report on brites and feel-good stories. Except, it seems, in the case of wars that some find messy and distasteful.

From GARY BERKLEY, former Belleville News-Democrat publisher: As a former KR publisher I can say Mark Yost knows what he's talking about. Sadly, he is probably toast. I used to marvel at the KR's Washington Bureau psyche of "Let's ruin 'W' and anything he stands for" while proudly proclaiming no bias whatsoever. They pat themselves on the back every time they can stir the negativity pot against Bush, Iraq, tax cuts, Christianity, diversity, etc.

Unfortunately for Mark, the worst sin you can commit against these biased liberals is to call them biased liberals. It infuriates them to no end.

Unfortunate -- but true.

Meanwhile, Lovelady, having relied solely on ad hominem attacks in response to Yost, also accuses others of doing the same to him at Romanesko. This prompts the following response:

From MIKE HENKINS: Steve Lovelady writes:

In their ad hominem attacks on me, both Logan Anderson and Mike Henkins deftly avoid addressing the issue at hand:

Is Mark Yost, a Knight Ridder editorial writer in St Paul, correct in his assessment of the situation in Iraq, and his claim that it is being distorted by reporters on the ground?

This question would be easily solved and you and your colleagues are just the people who can solve it.

Ask a soldier and report all that they say. It's that simple, and it is something that it seems the media rarely does.

Many of these soldiers have personal blogs. Many of them are on leave or have rotated back. I spoken to a few directly and have read many of thier personal blogs and I have yet to hear one speak in favor of the reporting out of Iraq. None of them will say it's all went according to plan. No war ever has. None of them will say its a paradise. No country at war ever is. But to a man I have heard them say what they read in the papers and what they see on TV is not a factual representation of what they experienced in Iraq.

But hey, they do not have degrees in journalism, such as myself, so what do they or I know?

Instead of your own ad hominem attack on Mr. Yost, why did you not ask yourself the very same question you inquired of Mr. Anderson and myself?

Once again....

Bias? What bias?

Lovelady's response is brief, and welcome:

STEVE LOVELADY RESPONDS: Mike, I hate to tell you, but 99% of the news coming out of Iraq already comes from someone "asking a soldier." Who else are they going to ask? Insurgents? I don't think so.

Terrified and often hostile Iraqi civilians? Occasionally, but not very damned often.

It's war.

If you want to cover it, you get your information from soldiers and their commanders.

Period.

That's my que. Since I'm a military guy, I know that an attack deserves a response, measured and appropriate in force to that attack:

Dear Steve,
re: why most Americans, particularly soldiers, hate the media
Why? Because of you.
Sincerely,
Greyhawk

As for that bias business, welcome to Mudville. Start here.

Oh, and be sure and visit my good friends at Soldiers?Angels.