Media Caught in Iraq's War of Perceptions ; Many Americans Have Seen News Coverage as Overly Negative, but Mounting Troop Deaths Test Support for War
Ann Scott Tyson Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
Just as news footage of Vietnam casualties slowly eroded public backing for that conflict, today's bold headlines on US military deaths in Iraq are revealing a ground truth that is, more swiftly, undercutting domestic support for the Iraq war.
Some polls show that most Americans no longer believe removing Saddam Hussein was worth the loss of US lives; significant majorities now consider the 400-plus US casualties in Iraq "unacceptable."
"We've reached that magic number, and now Americans are asking whether it's worth it or not," says John Zogby of Zogby International, which conducted prewar polls showing that war support would drop below 50 percent if US casualties went into the hundreds.
The stream of bad news is heightening tensions between an American media that feels duty-bound to report US losses in the headlines, and a Bush administration and Pentagon prone to castigating the negative coverage as one-sided.
Newly enforced restrictions on media coverage reflect Washington's sensitivity to public attitudes. At home, reporters are kept at a distance from Iraq servicemens' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery; they are not allowed to photograph caskets returning to Delaware's Dover Air Base. In Iraq, the military has mistakenly fired on journalists, detained them, or confiscated their equipment, leading media organizations to raise protests with the Pentagon.
Strategically, the war of perceptions has real-world import: In a classic guerrilla campaign, targets are as much political as military, US commanders stress. "It's a serious issue.... Our opponents are attacking the political and moral will of the American people - that's their strategic objective," the Army vice chief of staff Gen. John Keane, told a recent congressional hearing before he stepped down. Americans need a full picture of Iraq to see "what the gain is for that loss of life," he said.
Pentagon leaders have accused the media of "largely ignoring" progress while dwelling on problems. "It isn't all terrible. There's some darn good stuff happening," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Many Americans agree. A Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll taken early this month, for example, found that 41 percent of Americans believe the media's Iraq coverage is too negative, 15 percent say it is too positive, 36 percent say it is balanced.
Yet US editors and media analysts counter that the spreading guerrilla attacks on the US-led coalition are rightfully major news in Iraq today, and take precedence over coverage of repairing schools or restoring water. Iraq is not a PR problem, but a policy problem, they say.
"No matter how many reporters are there, you are always going to have more coverage of Americans dying than [of] an electricity grid coming up," says George Condon, Washington bureau chief of Copley Newspapers. "That's how it should be, because that's what Americans care about."
At the heart of the debate is what constitutes "news." News is, by definition, something unusual, different, revealing, or dramatic - whether it be the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue or the car bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad.
But the news is not comprehensive.
"It's an inherent limitation of news. It can't give you all of reality. It necessarily focuses on a tiny piece of reality that is making the most noise at the moment," says John Watson, assistant professor of communications at American University here. In hotspots, "most news organizations are unable to devote the time and manpower" to covering breaking news while also providing thorough overviews for perspective. …