Iraq seems to reflect that. I am not as bitter about that as many, in fact since it dovetails with many of my own prejudices, I generally shrug it off. I won’t act as if it doesn’t exist.

I don’t see narratives as necessarily a bad thing, so long as you can filter them. We have enough competing narratives to be able to do that, but “the other side” is just as important in a balanced news diet as the one you agree with.

I honestly don’t know this: how does Yon handle anonymous sources (i.e. people too afraid to be publicly identified)? Are they automatically more or less reliable than some other reporter? If so, why or how?

Besides, a real reporter provides those things to his editors and producers, and he then writes a condensed version for publication. The Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and other scandals) are notable for how those news agencies did not do their due diligence, as Lance pointed out.

IIRC, Yon treats anonymous sources like every other reporter, although he is very good about establishing whether or not their claims can be verified. I don’t know if I’ve seen any claims asserted as fact from Yon that didn’t have a named source backing them up.

But the problem hasn’t been so much with the reporters out in the trenches (although the narrative is taken with them into the battlefield), as has been the editors back home. I’ve read numerous complaints from reporters about how the entire gist of their reporting was changed before printing, so much so that the reporter didn’t recognize his/her own work.

The problem with reporting to fit the narrative is as I explained here:

Where narratives are less useful, in that they tend to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it, is in the business of conveying facts. I would call that business “news reporting” but that seems to be a particularly dead art. News reporting today consists almost entirely of developing a story line and then conveying facts (or rumors) that fit the story line to the exclusion of all else. When relaying nebulous ideas, narratives can provide a structure in which to comprehend those ideas. When relaying facts, however, and especially when doing so in a selective manner, narratives provide a framework for argument rather than explanation. The result, of course, is that people remember the narrative first and foremost, while the facts are recalled only insomuch as they fit the framework through which the story is told. Once the narrative is set, you see, there can be no deviation, or else the whole story falls apart.

If you have a narrative in mind when reporting a story, you tend to look for evidence to support that story, and you will either be unaware of or ignore any facts that don’t fit the narrative. That’s not reporting. That’s making an argument. Reporters aren’t supposed to make arguments, but instead to report ALL of the facts to the best of their ability to gather them. Reporting to a narrative doesn’t allow for that duty to be fulfilled.

A blog with an infinite amount of space is not comparable to a newspaper or television show with enormous capital expenditure and limited physical space. Truth be told, I’d say Yon’s job is far easier, as he has relatively fewer constraints — it’s much easier to post what amounts to a book chapter than a 700-word dispatch. You know the aphorism — “I’m sorry, I didn’t have the time to be brief.”

I honestly don’t know this: how does Yon handle anonymous sources (i.e. people too afraid to be publicly identified)? Are they automatically more or less reliable than some other reporter? If so, why or how?

Besides, a real reporter provides those things to his editors and producers, and he then writes a condensed version for publication. The Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and other scandals) are notable for how those news agencies did not do their due diligence, as Lance pointed out.

His standards are so much higher than the MSM’s reports that it’s laughable to compare them.

As for the NYT, I wish the editorials read as if the editors actually read their reporters stories. Often they don’t.

As for the no evidence bit. I also again apologize for my improper use of hyperbole. I should have said “no evidence it is systematic or deliberate.” When you get down to it, all news is hearsay, unless the reporter witnesses it himself. So Yon, for example, is a great source for what his unit sees and does… for everything else, he’s just repeating what someone else says—which could be more or less reliable than the much-maligned stringers (who do, it should be noted, have access to areas white journalists simply do not because of the danger).

So we’re stuck. Our reporters can go get first-hand reports of areas the military has yet to clear, at least without an unreasonable risk of kidnapping and murder, so they rely on locals. Some get it wrong, some outright lie. So do our own guys, too.

One reporter I sorely miss is Steven Vincent. In his book, In The Red Zone, he did what I wish all these reporters would do: live among regular, on-the-street Iraqis. He had a deep love for them as a people (and was, according to his wife, considering marrying his interpreter so she could be taken from the country because the U.S. would not let her emigrate despite the threats to her life). Vincent was, quite tragically, kidnapped and beheaded. But his reporting lives on, as a record of the early years of the occupation, colored by nothing but the opinions of the Iraqis themselves—whose real opinions are sorely missing from most reporting. It’s all kabuki now, I feel.

Of course, other journalists know Vincent’s lesson as well—hence the stringers, hence the bloggers who only embed with the military, and never go anywhere without protection. It is unfortunate, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it systemic or symptomatic of anything other than the complicated problem of getting reliable information in a chaotic war zone.

Because if you’re arguing the superiority of one sort of bias above others, then I don’t think we’d be able to resolve this

That isn’t what I am arguing, but the military can give their view, and we can let Greenwald give his. Or, they can do their damn job! We have examples of how to do it, you have even brought up some. Let us see some more.

“actively being credulous toward terrorists.” I just don’t see any evidence of the latter

What?!! You have got to be kidding. You can argue that it isn’t as big a problem as Michael says it is, but no evidence? Do we need to waste space recounting the number of stories picked up by just AP stringers and published with it seems no due diligence? Seriously, because if we do, I will. We had one just the other day that has been confirmed false, yet again. That doesn’t even count the number of stories where all we have is the terrorists and the stringers word for it. We don’t know they are false, though evidence suggests they are, but the AP stands firm by their reporters. Other organizations have suffered similar embarrassments. Hence the term ‘Pallywood” for example. The Jamil Hussein story. Whoever he was, the story was false. Please Josh, not enough evidence, too little evidence, subjective to a degree, but “no evidence?”

while Lance complains the teeny size of AQI means nothing

Obviously you are irritated, and my responses seem to irritate you more. The whole conversation would go better if you stopped claiming things I didn’t say. Then we wouldn’t have to go into endless digressions which are pointless because you misrepresent them as well, leading to more, and well it is a loop. assume someone means something ridiculous and look at it just the right way and you can act as if everybody else is stupid, but it makes for poor discussion. I never said what you claim above, though that it is teeny is a bit of an odd statement. If 15% is teeny, then the insurgency is pretty small.

What I said is concentrating on that percentage is misleading. How that translates to “means nothing” is unclear, but let’s move on. Pilots are a small percentage of our military, I don’t think they are insignificant. So it is with many things. al Qaeda is a key problem in escalating violence, and the most vicious and violent of our foes. Their impact, as the military points out as well, is far more than the 15% figure suggests, assuming it is true. That is also because of their impact and influence on other groups.

Before you reply, please read carefully what I said before responding. If I didn’t actually say it, don’t act as if I do.

We’re teaming up with those funny-accented men with a thing for head chopping and suicide belts… when it suits us.

Maybe, though to what extent that is true is pretty unclear. Were the 1920 brigade for example part of the head choppers? I know they fought us, and they allied with al Qaeda (which is part of why al Qaeda is so much more than 15%) but how involved were they with such things? I am not sure, please educate me if you have some real insight there.

Still, if we were refusing to try and turn groups such as these to our side you would be slamming us. That is one of the major ways these kinds of wars are won. You don’t have to like it, but it is true. That you find it incoherent says more about your mindset about our effort than the attempt to separate and develop a coherent set of allies. I thought it was the Bush administration which was inflexible and refused to compromise or make peace with enemies. Personally I hope they stay former enemies. As for operations still being mounted against particular groups, Please provide exactly what you are talking about, with links, because that could mean many things. Though I see nothing incoherent, there are numerous reasons, including that one part of a group is a problem, but others we are trying to stop being a problem.

Is that all you guys are saying? You’re bummed “the media” (which I take it to mean some reporters and editors) isn’t hewing closely enough to your preferred line of propaganda?

Maybe I should pose an incendiary question

The terrorists Josh. It isn’t even close. I disagree with you at times, that is part of the fun of it, but that is pretty hard to believe. Listening to the lies emanating for the jihadists video’s and tapes is excruciating. Yes, that is incendiary. Mission accomplished. Apply that standard to Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Wilson or Roosevelt by the way. The jihadists come in last, Bush doesn’t come in all that low at all, though granted, that is a pretty low bar. Or let us make it an international comparison, Bush versus the last 50 years of French Presidents? Italian leaders? I could go on. Criticize Bush, but let us not be naifs or cranks.

This is [not] about excusing shallow or lazy coverage, but accusing reporters of malice.

No, it is accusing them of adopting a narrative, which unless they have compelling evidence they do nothing to challenge. For many it is based in their malice towards the administration, I don’t think most reporters would deny that that malice is real (leave aside that some of it may be justified) just that it affects their reporting. Compelling evidence requires challenging your own assumptions and digging, such as seeing what was happening in Anbar last Fall and Winter rather than just noticing that violence was still happening. They missed the story. It wasn’t recognized until after the fact. I am not saying all of the reporters are so filled with malice as to actually lie (though some are) and claim that Anbar is worse, or deny the obvious if incomplete progress we have seen recently. That is the extent of it though, it has to slap them in the face to move from their lazy narrative. Some reporters have noticed, many who have been quite critical of the war. They either have held their fire or didn’t want to see it, but as they see the changes in the situation the disconnect has been obvious, as the Der Spiegel story makes clear. More along those same lines:

The world has become deaf to the word “peace” — at least when conversations turn to Iraq. It is as if the world were blind to the possibility that the situation in this country straddling the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers could be anything different from the constant stream of increasingly devastating films of the latest car bombings.

“Deaf.” Quite a choice word, as in unwilling to hear. “Blind,” as in unwilling to see. “Blind to possibility,” as in being unwilling to lose their smug certainty.

I understand their fear. However, you shouldn’t then pretend you know what you do not, or compress the coverage until “Iraq has become nothing but a series of attacks, a collection of images of bombings and victims” because it fits what you want to believe and is easier than doing your level best to figure it out. If they can’t do better then yes, just let the military give their version to fill the airtime and we can get the counterpoint from someone else.

And I agree skepticism is warranted all around. But I also think there is a big difference between “being given bad information by stringers who turned out to be unreliable” and “actively being credulous toward terrorists.” I just don’t see any evidence of the latter… or, perhaps in a broader sense, how these reporters could even possibly do better. Yes, it was dumb the AP didn’t send a reporter to a village… how that applies to the other hundred media groups in Iraq, I don’t know. Did Yon contact the AP reporter to see why he wouldn’t come over? Did he know the reporter got his message, or didn’t have other things to do, or was told it still wasn’t yet safe? There remains critical context missing from these blanket condemnations — and an awful lot of broad stereotypes that don’t advance the argument much.

Maybe I should pose an incendiary question: which group, “the terrorists” you still can’t define, or the Bush Administration, has a richer history of lying about their aims, goals, and methods… and would therefore be more worthy of skepticism?

Who says I can’t define the terrorists? They pretty much do that on their own. If you’re having trouble, they’re the ones with the funny accents who have a ken for suicide bombings and lopping off the heads of infidels.

As far as who is more worthy of skepticism, while your oh-so frank delivery is perhaps a bit too suggestive of the only answer you’ll accept, I tend to vote for skepticism all the way around. If I had to choose, however, I’d go with the blokes who are much less likely to want to lop off my head. YMMV.

I wonder why … NOT.
Yon offered his material — photos, videos, names, numbers, etc. all FREE to AP etc. till the end of July. Not a nibble.
Gee, I wonder — no, I don’t. Neither do you.

There absolutely is a “narrative” and the media has become much less shy about it, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending there isn’t one. That media narrative routinely approaches terrorist claims with complete credulity while automatically treating anything coming from our side as a lie. Skepticism isn’t the problem here, and indeed a whole lot more of it when dealing with enemy claims would be most welcome. The problem is that our own media, and that of much of the west, gets routinely used by the terrorists for disseminating their propaganda because those delivering the “news” have a political and/or ideological disagreement with Bush and/or America. Watching Al Qaeda, et al., play the MSM is like seeing like Liberace and Little Richard performing “The Rose” on a rhinestone encrusted piano; both are equally disgusting to watch.

As for the lack of a reporter, well that is the point about them adopting lazy narratives with limited actual knowledge. Lacking real insight we get car bombings. if you think it is just laziness, and not a willingness to be lazy because they already had the story written in their minds ahead of time, then so be it. However, they sure seem able to dig when it doesn’t. I can just see the First Gulf War coverage (todays top news, artillery shells exploded, many Iraqi’s dead, 4 US casualties) I mean, that would be news if it happened in DC right?

As for the reporters who do get out, I think they do do a pretty good job. Yon himself praises a number of them, and yet has the same criticism as we do, including the reliance on unreliable stringers, especially by the AP. It isn’t cognitive dissonance, it is a different issue. Burns, Alexandra Davis, and a number of others (including O’Hanlon and Cordesmann) have done good work. Ironically, as they and all the others venture out to assess the surge and progress in Anbar they seem to be giving us a rather nuanced view. Good, I am glad of it. I just wish those stories were on the front page on a regular basis instead of the bombing and casualty counts. The news is bad, and good. I enjoy it.

The word by the way was narrative, not carrying water (though that is what it amounts to at times, unwittingly or not.) If a great many had been more questioning of their prejudices before progress in Anbar was so obvious as to be unavoidable don’t you think the debate would have been better last Spring? Some were noting it last Winter. Some noted that they were doing things which likely would make difference before even that. Most (trying to be generous, since somewhere you might find somebody) of the MSM press corp, even the good ones like Burns, were nowhere. I was seeing an incredible turnaround from the military, bloggers and others in Anbar while reading people in the media and political class talking about the deteriorating situation and how Anbar had long been lost. Don’t you think the American people deserved better coverage than that? I almost felt sorry for the sockpuppet’s silly piece on the first few reports in the major media as a scandal of un-objective reporting in May, because those first reports were about a three day lull? Or so the media had made it appear. Instead the puppet looks the fool since the story had been developing since at least last fall in reality.

We even have as hostile a source as Der Speigel noting not only the emerging possibility of some measure of success, but acknowledging, even though it is not highlighted, so I will, the media’s failure

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq — it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe.

Since the world knows of Iraq through the media the indictment is clear. The media has failed to provide what we need because many don’t want to believe. The choice of the word want is notable and apt for many. This passage also applies:

For most people, Iraq has become nothing but a series of attacks, a collection of images of bombings and victims, a tale of failure, a book about historical guilt and a symbol of the moral decline of the United States of America.

But the real story in Iraq cannot be summed up in short news clips and quick, shaky television images. Body counts and names of the dead tell only part of the story of Iraq today.

That sure seems to be making Michael’s point to me.

Those sorts of questions — just as honest reporting of a long string of car bombings (which you bet your ass would be major news and dominate the cycle if it happened in a western country) don’t imply malicious toward anything beyond your hurt pride that the war isn’t going well. When even your favored warbloggers can’t really say anything bad about the actual MSM reporters they’re embedded with (in particular the dread NYT, whose embeds have been praised repeatedly), I don’t think you have much argument for what you’re saying.

If depicting the AQI etc. as terror-mongers and the US forces as liberators is propaganda, well, so what? Fair’s fair, and both sides deserve air time and print space. The uncritical dissemination of Al-Jazeera style anti-liberation propaganda by the MSM and its sullen refusal to cover or transmit the opposing narrative is hardly in doubt. Or possible to misinterpret. Though you’re giving it a good shot.

As for defining who exactly we’re fighting… well, if you can do that, then you’re many steps ahead of the DoD, our entire intelligence community, and anyone in Iraq. The UK Ministry of Defense recently tried to assess what exactly it is the Coalition is facing in Iraq, and said there were several dozen to upwards of 75 separate militias and sectarian groups, all committing acts of violence against each other and the people groups they represent, and all with their own agendas, motivations, desires, and policies. For example, who planted that bomb today: which militia group? How does it get dealt with in a way that can either neutralize it or partner with it (as we did in Anbar) such that its competitors aren’t emboldened to take on new action?

It is that – the incomprehensible complexity of the groups all competing against each other – that makes me think we’re doomed to futility. You don’t fight a self-organizing network (which is what they are when you get down to it) with a surge of troops.

As for you, Lance… well, I respect Michael Yon, and I do appreciate what he does. But he is a mouthpiece of the Army. He could be writing feature-length press releases for defenselink.mil and not really change a thing about his style. While people like him do serve a purpose, I’d rather have a free press that questions the political leadership and to a certain degree calls them on their bullsh*t and holds them accountable to the public. They certainly don’t always do that, but as a whole they do.

Whatever your feelings of it, I don’t see how we’re well-served by propaganda.

Lance, I still don’t get it. When “constant shallow reports on the violence” make up the vast proportion of coverage of the largest and most influential newspapers in the country (the Post’s coverage is similar), and people still complain that “the media” don’t do enough to cover the atrocities…

I thought I explained the problem with that. Obviously I didn’t do a good job.
It is how you cover it that makes a difference. I don’t have time to draw that out at the moment, since I failed yesterday obviously, so I’ll leave it at that until later.

I don’t know what your expectations are here, unless you’re demanding everyone turn into Michael Yon.

Not possible, but they could certainly move more in that direction.

Without going point-for-point, let me just say that the biggest problem with the media coverage of this war is its failure to define just who we’re fighting. Stories about Abu Ghraib and Haditha are beaten to death in the press, and they are used to define the US as brutal, insensitive and oppressive. Those are qualitative judgments about our actions in Iraq, and about the war itself.

There are no such judgments (or, at least, very few) passed by the media about the brutality that is al Qaeda and its adherants UNLESS such stories can be framed in a way that questions the wisdom of toppling Saddam. When such focus and scrutiny is palced on our behavior, and such credulity is displayed by the media in accepting as true any account that places us in a bad light thus undermining any possible support for the war, we lose just a little bit more ground to the terrorists.

Tigerhawk’s analysis explains in very logical terms why that is so.

BAGHDAD, July 26 — A car bomb tore through a crowded market in central Baghdad on Thursday evening, killing at least 25 people and injuring 110, police said…

The explosion was the latest in a string of car bombs in Karrada, a largely Shiite district long considered one of Baghdad’s safest neighborhoods. More than 50 people have been killed in seven car bomb attacks in the neighborhood this month. There was no significant violence in Karrada in June, police records show.

Since the war began, Karrada had been one of the few places in Baghdad to have escaped intense sectarian violence…

Odierno also said that he has seen some encouraging results from the increased level of U.S. troops in Iraq, including a decrease in the number of military casualties in July, but added that it is too early to tell whether a five-month-old strategy to improve security is effective.

It’s worth reading it all to see what I mean, but are you telling me that is totally lacking in context because it does not repeat ad nauseum that the people butchering innocent people buying clothes are in fact bad people who need to be stopped?