From The Washington Post, 6/26/05:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062500862.html
Ombudsman
Casualties and Coverage in the Balance
By Michael Getler
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page B06
On June 16, a caller from Maryland said she had heard a radio report
the night before that seven U.S. servicemen had been killed in Iraq,
but when she looked in The Post, there was no news about it.
Actually, the paper did report it in a story from Iraq, inserting
material from a Reuters news service account saying that the U.S.
military reported that five Marines had been killed the previous day.
The Post mentioned it again the following day, adding that a sailor
had also been killed and pointing out that it was the second time in a
week that a roadside bomb had killed that many Marines.
Both these items, however, were well inside stories that had headlines
about other things.
The June 16 headline on Page A20 said, "Australian Hostage Is Rescued
in Baghdad; Dozens of Iraqis Killed at Mess Hall."
The next day's story on Page A22 was headlined, "Sunnis Added to Iraq
Constitution Panel."
So it is easy to miss these things.
Almost every week, I get one, two or three calls or e-mails like this
one from people upset about the way military losses are reported and
presented.
That's not much, but it has formed a steady hum in the background the
past year or so, and I find myself in sympathy with these readers.
I think their point is important because it goes to the question of
whether the reality of the war in Iraq has become sanitized in the
newspapers; there are almost no pictures of dead or wounded Americans,
and very few stories about U.S. casualties make the front page or get
a main headline.
The Post, in particular, has done a superior job in reporting on the
war from Iraq.
Similarly, the paper does several other things that call attention to
the war's toll.
There are feature stories in Style and stories of funerals and
remembrances of local service members in Metro.
A small feature runs on most days in the World News section with the
tally of those killed and wounded as announced by the Pentagon, and an
excellent graphic appeared in that section on May 1 depicting the
human and financial cost of the war.
And since the war began in March 2003, on 15 occasions The Post has
run powerful, two-page spreads labeled Faces of the Fallen, with the
portraits of those killed in Iraq.
It has also done fine work in presenting the carnage being done to
Iraqis by suicide bombing and other attacks, including many front-page
stories and photos.
Yet, between April 1 and June 23, as I write this, 193 U.S. service
members died in Iraq, and there wasn't a single, major front-page
headline that captured this as it was unfolding or summed things up at
any point.
(More Marine deaths, including that of a woman, were reported in a
front-page story yesterday and were mentioned in the subheadline.)
Here are some examples of what is more typical.
On June 11 there was a reference -- inside the box at the bottom of
the front page that tells readers some of what's inside -- to a story
about five Marines being killed. But even that small "key" headline
said, "Iraq Violence Flares Near Syrian Border," and the headline on
the story inside made no reference to the Marines.
On May 25, nine U.S. troops were reported killed.
The front-page story was headlined, "Insurgent Chief Wounded, Aide
Says."
Underneath that, in the smaller, lighter-faced type used for subheads,
it said "Zarqawi Reportedly Shot; 9 U.S. Troops Die in Attacks."
There have been other references in front-page stories to soldiers or
Marines being killed, but rarely in a headline of any kind and almost
always as part of a story that gives the headline to other aspects of
the war.
The combat deaths usually unfold one or two at a time, and that's not
likely to produce individual stories.
But when four or five, or nine, are killed in one day, that seems
different.
Compared with the casualties of World War II, Korea or Vietnam, the
numbers are still not high, and the public understands that people get
killed in wars.
Nevertheless, this is an unusual and controversial war, and it could
be a long one.
So news organizations need to find ways so that even a slow buildup of
casualties does not escape the kind of occasional Page One attention
-- in headlines, words and pictures -- that readers deserve and won't
miss.
There was a torrent of critical e-mails and calls about a Washington
Sketch column on June 17 by Post columnist Dana Milbank that appeared
in the news section and was about the unofficial hearing on Iraq held
by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other opponents of the war the
day before.
I thought it was a serious mistake for editors to assign a columnist
to cover a news event.
There are large numbers of people who oppose the war and care about
what Conyers was trying to accomplish, and a reporter should have
covered the event as news.
If a columnist wants to write a separate piece with his take on it,
that's fine.
But it is not enough by itself.
___________________________________________________
Washington Post's just following Bush Crime Family orders, that's all.
Harry
.
|
