Casualties and Coverage in the Balance
By Michael Getler
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page B06
....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....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....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....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062500862.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
