Journalists: Useful Idiots for Terrorists?

Here is another gem from Berlin Aspen Institute's Jeffrey Gedmin...the original English version of the article that was published in Tuesday's "Welt" in German. I had planned to publish the piece earlier, but then had to delay it because of Katrina. Katrina is still at the forefront of our thinking, but I think Jeffrey Gedmin's voice needs to be heard under any circumstances.

Journalists: Useful Idiots for Terrorists?

By Jeffrey Gedmin

I think media coverage of Iraq generally stinks. Televison is the
absolute worst. I have a simple theory. Lots of people at CNN, BBC and in
German media--in the last case it would be hard to find exceptions--were
against the war. Passionately against. I believe that today these same
folks allow their passions and prejudice to get in the way of fair and
objective reporting. I wonder what it would take to initiate an honest
and open debate about the subject in Germany? Or any debate at all for
that matter.

By now, of course, the media has succeeded in reducing Iraq to a single
issue story: suicide bombings. Terrorist violence is an enormous

problem, to be sure. It could eventually plunge the country into chaos.
You'll get no argument here to play down the matter. But when a bomb goes
off and kills 35 Iraqis in the capital, I also want to know how the other
24, 999,965 are living, what they think, how they feel. Note: The
violence you see on television is concentrated in 4 to 6 of Iraq's 18
provinces, mostly in the center of the country, mostly in Baghdad. Ten of
Iraq's 18 provinces were nearly terror free when measured over a six month
period earlier this year. That is, they either had no attacks or what
did transpire represented less than one percent of violence country
wide.

For a change I would like to see a story on the Marsh Arabs, for
example. Saddam bombed their villages in the early 1990s, killing 30,000 to
60,000, diving nearly a half million from their homes. Saddam also mined
and poisened their whetlands--nearly 20,000 sq kilometres--to prevent
them from returning. The UN called this at the time the world's worst
environmental disaster. Today, with Japanese help, the marshes are being
restored, the water is being purified, the Marsh Arabs are coming home.
OK, these pictures are not as sexy as bombs and blood. But it’s sad
that media keeps selling short the progress.

It's also sad because the kind of reporting we do get supports the
terrorists' media strategy. The killers say explicitly that they stage
operations to increase pessimism in order to pressure the US and others to
leave the country. One told the Financial Times last week that he
watches Western television everyday to gauge their progress. I wonder
whether our journalists ever think about being the terrorist’s "useful
idiots." I also wonder whether some want the terrorists to win. Roland Heine
of the Berliner Zeitung has the courage to admit as much. He wrote in a
recent editorial column that the jihadists and their allies have the
moral and legal right to kill the “Besatzer” and their “ Einheimische
Hilfskräfte”.

These last days we gets lots of dark reporting on the Iraqi
constitutional process. I am not expert, but I read the draft constitution and
checked with a few learned types. It seems that this Iraqi constitution
has stronger formulations about human rights than those found in the
recent Afghan constitution. It seems that the Iraqi constitution is more
liberal than the constitutions of moderate Arab states like Jordan and
Egypt. I also note that the Iraqis, despite immense pressure form the
terrorists and precious little moral support from Europe, have been
working hard to reach compromises and settle their differences peacefully.
That's new for Iraq and the Arab world. So the Iraq pessimists say, It
will all still all go to Hell! I say maybe. And maybe not. But then I
have my own bias. I want the Iraqis to succeed. (emphasis added)

What I like in particular about Jeffrey Gedmin's articles: he has the guts to actually name journalists who provide biased reporting.

They'll hate him for it... Which is a badge of honor, in my humble opinion.

(Hat tip Julian Knapp, who sent us the English version)

Update: As I wrote - German journalists hate him for this article. Proof: this comment from Eckhard Fuhr in Berliner Morgenpost. Fuhr tries to poke fun at Gedmin by implying that even at the end of WWII there were good news and regions unaffected by the war, but the media concentrated only on the bad stuff. Unintentionally, he compares Hitler to Saddam - a comparison that - among the German angry left - is usually reserved for George W. Bush.

Comments

[mbl]

I usually enjoy reading Gedmin's stuff, not because I agree with him, but because he usually provides a well reasoned alternative view to my own. This time, though, I'm having trouble with his reasoning. If the issue is does the media tend to play up the bad things going on in Iraq, then I agree. But tell me, how often does one see feel good stories on the news? Isn't over sensationalizing awful things now a hallmark of most media outlets, be it in the United States or Germany? Don't get me wrong, I find this to be a bad thing, but I (sadly) don't find the media's emphasis on the killing in Iraq abnormal. However, I don't think that is what Gedmin is saying here. If one takes his position to its logical conclusion, then the only way not to aid terrorists is not to report on any bad things in Iraq. If the killers are trying to create pessmism, as Gedmin suggests, then any bad news would aid them. Right? If he is calling for more balanced reporting, then I'm all for that. But I don't think that's what he is saying. It sounds more to me like he is saying the media is either with us or against us.

[Querdenker]

"Ten of Iraq's 18 provinces were nearly terror free when measured over a six month
period earlier this year."

Maybe

40 out of 50 US states weren't touched by Hurricane Katrina
4 out of 5 inhabitants of New Orleans got out before the storm hit.
And only 2 out of 100 US cities were affected by 9/11
Only 2 countries out of 200 were invaded.

The bias is just incredible.

Note from David: Querdenker, not one of your smartest comments, if I may say so.

[Querdenker]

David

It's not the smartest comment of Gedmin, if I may say so. (Note from David: You said so before, in other words.)

Excuse me, that Iraqi constitution is a nightmare. They may mention human rights but if it's basically sharia light.

Balanced reporting is great, but it helps when you can do it without fearing for your life. Stephen Vincent in Basra comes to mind. Right now most journalist aren't really able to report because they can hardly move around the country. (Note from David: Which doesn't keep them from reporting "chaos" in "Iraq".)

And next time Gedmin may write that all that negative reporting of New Orleans is hurting the economy of the South. Which side are you on? (Note from David: Another not so smart comment...)

We can always need more balanced reporting but the accident on the Autobahn that kills 10 people will always get more coverage than those millions who made it home safely. (Note from David: It's not about reporting "good news", it's about objectivity. Watching German tv and reading German media provides you with a "everywhere chaos" picture of Iraq. And this picture is clearly false.)

Re "Marsh Arabs:

Eine Chance für die irakischen Sümpfe
http://www.nzz.ch/2005/03/09/ft/articleCMBVF.html (Note from David: Thanks for the link to a Swiss paper.)

[Doug]

A little Gedmin is always welcome, even -- no, especially -- now.

[Tyranno]

querdenker posts:

"It's not the smartest comment of Gedmin, if I may say so.
Excuse me, that Iraqi constitution is a nightmare. They may mention human rights but if it's basically sharia light."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You ever wonder why those who say the west has "no right impose itself!" . . . never hesitate to impose themselves. . .
Note to Allawi & Talabani, Run that final draft of the Iraqi Constitution past querdenker for his approval . . . so he can ensure it meets up to his Jeffersonian standards of Constitution writing excellence.

Tyranno

PS: Next it will be the undotted "i," then uncrossed "T," then the shape of the paper, then the color of the ink . . . blahblahblahblah . . .

Tyranno

PS: Amusingly, they are the last to understand why Michael Moore just keeps gaining weight, why Kerry lost, or why Rather got fired, and why no one listens to them anymore. Ignorance and emotional hatred just aren't selling as well these days.

[RayD]

@ Querdenker:

NO, the new Iraqi constitution is not a nightmare. Saddam Hussein's terror regime was the real nightmare. Your inability to put that fact into perspective is the fundamental problem here. One that you share with millions of others.

[Querdenker]

RayD, if "but it's better than Saddam" is the going standard then indeed standards have gone quite low.

David, Gedmin talked about the European media. I think the NZZ is part of it. I also remember print articles in the FAZ and the ZEIT about that topic.

It's a bit hard to blame a journalist for using the chaos word when he fears to get killed while reporting the "good" news.

Also I don't buy the "bad news are helping the terrorists" meme. If only "good news" came out of Iraq the US public would wonder why so many troops are needed in Iraq. If terrorist were really strategic planners they would just lay low for a few years and when the Americans are gone take over the country.

[James W.]

Querdenker: If only "good news" came out of Iraq ....

From the comments I've read, I don't think that's what's being asked for here. How about a little perspective and objectivity--a truer picture if you will? The mainstream media today is playing politics by influencing public opinion, which in turn influences political policy. If you cannot imagine that terrorists are not intelligent enough to exploit this fact, then I think you're living in a fantasy world.

[RayD]

@ Querdenker:

RayD, if "but it's better than Saddam" is the going standard then indeed standards have gone quite low.

Your words Querdenker, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it is absurd for you to call the Iraqi constitution a nightmare (have you even read it all?), especially when one considers what Iraqis had before. That is by no means a comparison and that "standard" is your strawman my friend.

As for the chaos word, that is virtually the only thing we've heard the past two years. I don't have a problem with a lot of the news or even the majority of the news coming out of Iraq being negative since clearly many things remain to be resolved there. But I would like to see the occassional report on the positive, because obviously there are many positive developments going on there as well. The media is creating a profoundly warped image of reality in Iraq the way that it is reporting now, and that warped image, where everything is death, suffering and terrorism, is in fact helping the terrorists by robbing people of their will to fight. They have no sense of the very real progress that is occurring in Iraq and they have a right to know about it.

[Pogue Mahone]

Didn't 8 million Iraqi's vote in January?

Think about it - turnout at 65% - for ALL of Iraq - in an actual free ballot

Surely this is the news in the ME

"Insurgents" blowing people up - why is this even noteworthy compared to the stirrings of democracy in the region?

I may be showing my age - but I remember a time when Democrats, liberals and europeans supported democracy in the third world

The name Mandela seems to ring a bell

It would seem that there is only one thing worse that a third world mass murdering dictator though - having the USA lead the effort to depose him and work toward representative gov't for his former subjects

It seems now this is the "nightmare"

My God - how do you function with this complete loss of perspective?

[mbl]

I think the media has done a pretty good job covering elections and the formation of the constitution there. Those are truly important and newsworthy events. The trouble is, they don't happen every day. Yes, the stirring of democracy there is happening everyday, but when given the choice between showing the aftermath of explosions or people working to plant the seeds of democracy, I'm afraid that the sensation-driven media (both on the right and left) will opt for the former. In short, I think Gedmin is barking up the wrong tree and in the process sending a bad message to the media. The media isn't covering terrorist attacks because they are anti-Bush. They are doing so because that's the kind of news they like to cover. It's sensational. Furthermore, telling the media that they are aiding terrorists, to me, is a thinly vieled attempt to censor the meida.

[EddieP]

Doubters and hand wringers about Iraq should read Mark Steyn's latest.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474766/posts