Media Problems

Yesterday, an old friend left a good comment below my follow-up post about the suicide attack on the Palestinian Hotel in Bagdad. BergBruder writes:

I recently heard a comment from Oli North that one of the main problems with the American media's recent coverage of the War On Terror (in Iraq) is that the cost of keeping journalists embedded is very high. Consequetly, not one American news company has maintained embedded journalists throughout the war. I remember the early days of the war when the coverage was good, when every news channel had their own embedded journalists, when the coverage made you feel like you were a part of what was going on over there--when it made you feel connected. It's unfortunate that the recent attack on the Hotel Palestine happened when it did as Fox News (and others, I would presume) was planning to revive their efforts at embedded journalism by sending their people into the field as early as this week. Yes, the terrorists know what they are doing. The good news is that we are going to win this war, with or without an Iraqi democracy. I, for one, hope it is with an Iraqi democracy but the media must do their part. Watch for the new reports from embedded journalists in the following weeks!

Very interesting observation. This seems consistent with a narrative and description of the logistics required to be an embed by Michael Yon, a freelance independent writer who was embedded with Deuce-Four in Mosul:

People who wonder about the limited number of reporters on the ground in Iraq probably think it's the danger that keeps many away. This certainly is true for some. For others, the persuasive problems are more practical: the expenses can be severe. There's expense associated with planning and applying for the embed. There is specialized gear to be purchased: protective equipment alone can cost thousands of dollars per person, and even in peaceful times, the desert climate is still extremely hard on electronic equipment. Getting to the Middle East requires a long, expensive flight. And the Hilton that came so highly recommended also came with a high room rate: $590 for a room that would have been worth maybe $150 in Florida. There was nothing to drink in the room, but the front desk offered to send up two bottles of water for about $23. There was no internet cable in the room. For $590 per night, a guest shouldn't have to pay for water, or call for an internet cable. For that kind of money, there should be a helipad on the roof. (The next night I got a room at the same Hilton for closer to $200, and negotiated the first room down.)

Read the rest and definitely read through the rest of Michael's site. He has provided for himself with expenses out of his own pocket to produce the closest and most intellegent reporting on the War in Iraq to date.

I'd also like to add that I think journalists also suffer from a severe lack of military or general historical knowledge. I don't think that it is quite enough to "get experience" in country--it is key that if one is going to report to the world what is happening on the ground in Iraq, it would require a more than just a basic understanding of the military and somewhere to put reporting into context. Even then, most journalists lack the basics.

For instance, there are numerous examples of reports where reporters makes egregious claims, and then try to further their agenda based on fallacy. Here is a perfect example where COUNTERCOLUMN caught Wolf Blitzer pitching a doozy back in August:

Now I remember why I don't have a TV.

I was in the lunch room at work today, right before coming home, and Wolf Blitzer was on, talking to some retired general about the incident in which 14 marines were killed by 1 IED.

The general was trying to make the point that the IED was a "monster IED," and a shaped charge IED at that, and that it is not even clear that a Bradley or even an M1 Abrams tank crew could have survived that particular blast at that range.

The marines, apparently, were riding in a LAV or similar armored fighting vehicle:

The explosion flipped the 31-ton troop carrier over and caused it to burst into flames. It was not immediately clear how many of the marines had died from the explosion or from the flames.

That's right. The explosion flipped a 31-ton APC.

And what is Wolf Blitzer's argument? That the military didn't provide good vehicles in the Al Anbar Province. And that -- and I quote verbatim, -- "an up-armored Humvee would have stood a better chance."

Do the math. If the explosion flipped vehicle weight 31 tons (plus another ton and a half or so of marines and gear), then what are the survivability chances of a 4-ton uparmored Humvee?

I'll tell you:

Anything left of the Humvee would have been parked in Syria, dumbass.

The retired general was being too diplomatic to tell Blitzer he was being a moron, but Blitzer kept pressing the point. "I'm very disappointed that we don't have the good vehicles in the Al Anbar province," he says. "It's a very sensitive issue for me, because I was there in March.

Yeah, Wolf. How was the ride to the hotel?

This is the kind of dimwittery posing as military analysis in the media.

Essentially, the media is sitting at the bottom of a really big hole. They are ill-trained, unexperienced, and ideology challenged. Unfortunately, what they do have is a big mouth and are complete uninhibited about shoving crap down our throats that could barely muster a D-minus grade, on a curve of course, in a Freshman Year Sociology course.