War coverage criticized from all sides

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/opinion/3_29_03chihak.html


War coverage criticized from all sides
MICHAEL CHIHAK
Tucson Citizen
March 29, 2003
'Your war coverage is a disgrace. Do you get those headlines from the Iraqi News Agency?"
"It would be of great service to your newspaper and your readers to find someone who has never worked as a reporter and can give an unbiased report."
"Does the Citizen only print what it thinks the public should hear and what makes them feel good?"
"You have a DUTY to report on ... grassroots outpourings of support for our country."
Those quotations are a small sampling of the comments and reactions being sent to us from readers regarding coverage of the war in Iraq, including our choices for which letters to the editor we will run.
The reactions are coming from all sides and from many points of view. Some people think the media should support the war effort. Others think we should avoid promoting the "don't think; just follow" attitude, as one letter writer put it.
Still others are critical of our choices of wording in headlines, our judgments about what photos to run and how we are playing up, or down, certain aspects of what is going on in the war and in our country in reaction to the war.
We give voice to many of our critics by printing their comments as letters to the editor. With others, conversations by telephone help enlighten us, and them, to the potential pitfalls and frailties of the printed word.
Daily meetings among editors to plan and prepare coverage include discussions of the tone of our coverage, down to word selection in headlines, what photos we are choosing to run, especially on Page 1, and the mix of stories from Iraq and local stories related to the war. We strive for balance, fairness, accuracy.
In one series of meetings this week, we discussed an outsider's critique of our Page 1 headlines, photos and stories to help us continue to try bringing about balance in coverage and that all-important tone.
The man who did the critique is an ex-Marine and someone whom I would characterize as having a point of view that is right of center. He said that by choosing certain words, we could lead some of our readers to think that there was "tilt creeping into" our coverage.
He pointed to the big headline on Page 1 March 22 - "Bombing relentless; daring push to Baghdad." The bombing wasn't relentless, or at least our stories didn't support that idea, he said, and the push to Baghdad fell short of "daring" in his estimation at that point in the war.
He also took issue with the Monday Page 1 headline that said, "Allies close on Baghdad, but paying heavy price." His objection was to the word "heavy," which he said was a mischaracterization in relation to the numbers of casualties at that point, about two dozen.
"Now, one dead Marine is too many," he said, adding that he thought "heavy" was a subjective word that wasn't borne out by the facts. A woman caller made the same point, calling the headline "soap-operaish."
Another reader who e-mailed me Thursday agreed with our ex-Marine critic on Wednesday's use in a headline of the phrase "elite" to describe the Iraqi Republican Guard.
"These people are neither elite nor guarding any republic," the e-mailer said. "If you must use the term 'elite,' please apply it to the real elite troops, the ones wearing the Stars and Stripes."
The media, including the Citizen, have been using "elite" to distinguish highly trained Iraqi troops from others. But perhaps that distinction leads people to infer media bias or favoritism in coverage. We will try to be more judicious in our descriptive words.
Then there is the coverage of anti-war demonstrations and demonstrations that express support for the war. Early on, anti-war demonstrations dominated, but of late there has been a series of public displays of support for the war, for U.S. troops and for President Bush. We are striving to cover it all, with as much balance as possible.
One reader said in an e-mail this week that we should skip coverage of anti-war demonstrations because "they show a non-unified front."
Tolerance of public dissent is a fundamental principal of the democratic system. In fact, it is imbedded in the First Amendment. Thus, we won't purposefully ignore any significant aspect of this important story.
Michael A. Chihak's column appears on Saturdays. Contact him by phone at 573-4646; fax 573-4569; e-mail: mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com.