That's the lesson of this op-ed by journalism professor Andrea Otanez.
In the middle of the column, Otanez makes this admission:
Still, the mainstream media are condemned for not reporting successes [in the Iraq war], and maybe rightly so.
Maybe?!?
But the rest of the column is an argument that the mainstream media, or, as I prefer to say, the "mainstream" media, should put even more emphasis on American losses — which almost inevitably means that they will give less coverage of American successes. And almost no coverage of our allies' successes.
In short, Otanez concedes that "mainstream" coverage may be biased — and calls for it to be even more biased. Why? She never really explains, but she does give us this hint, when she describes her own views.
. . . people like me — who grew up in protected suburbs and formed our political awareness in the post-Vietnam era, who are educated, who are at least moderate if not liberal . . .
In other words, she's a leftist who has absorbed the wrong lessons from Vietnam. (And though she is a journalism professor, I would wager that she has never read Peter Braestrup's book, The Big Story. But she should.)
It is not hard to guess why this leftist journalism professor wants to see even more emphasis on American losses, why she thinks those stories are important, but stories of victories are not. Almost certainly she wants the United States (or at least the Bush administration) to lose this war. (Whether she admits that to herself or not.)
This is not a new technique. Enemy propagandists almost always stress American losses in order to lower American morale. In World War II, for example, Nazi propagandist "Lord Haw-Haw" emphasized just the kind of stories that Otanez wants emphasized now.
Among many techniques used, the Nazi broadcasts prominently reported on the shooting down of Allied aircraft and the sinking of Allied ships, presenting discouraging reports of high losses and casualties among Allied forces.
Fortunately, most American journalists did not follow Otanez's advice during World War II, did not think that their main job was to echo enemy propaganda, and to print as many stories as possible about American losses.
There are many ways to lie. That's why the usual oath that American witnesses take includes these phrases: "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". What Otanez is urging journalists to do is to lie in a way that would be excluded by the second phrase in that oath, and to tell only part of the truth.
What parts would she leave out? Besides victories, anything that would give us some perspective, such as this. That's right, American military losses per year were higher under President Carter than they have been under President George W. Bush. Mostly through accidents, granted, but a man (or woman) who dies in an accident is just as dead as one who dies in combat — and perhaps to less purpose. And I am old enough so that I can tell you that the losses under Carter were not a big issue for leftist journalism professors in 1980. Or since.
For years, I have been arguing that we should simply close journalism schools. Otanez's op-ed gives me one more reason to think that is the right thing to do, that it is hopeless to think that journalism schools can be reformed. But it may be that there are better journalism professors than Otanez, professors who do not think that our "mainstream" media should lie to us about the Iraq war, by telling us only the negative parts of the story. If so, I would like to hear from some of them.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at November 08, 2007 07:37 AM | Email ThisYou might have also mentioned that under Reagan's watch military deaths were considerably higher each year than now. Under Clinton's - lower.
Accidental military deaths, and all other categories except for combat deaths have been trending downward for more than a generation, in part because of a military that is diminishing in size, and probably improvements within the military that are lowering the death rates as well.
So, you're manipulating the information (leaving parts out too) to make your point that others do it?
Sheesh, what a bunch of drivel.
Posted by: BA on November 8, 2007 08:35 AMNo further evaluation necessary. They openly admit it.
Posted by: jimg on November 8, 2007 08:50 AMIf American priests and pastors were preaching the same calls for Jihad at our churches every Sunday as happens every day in the Mosques of the Middle East, then we'd have some Americans committing violence too. Religious leaders have a high position of trust and authority, and when they make fervent calls to action, they are often heeded regardless of the state or religion. Until Islamic leadership owns their problem, we are going to have to confront it in some way, because the leadership of the middle east is theocratic.
When I encounter someone on the left who has strong opinions on Iraq, the first thing I do is to casually ask if they have heard of Michael Yon. If the answer is no, I just walk away. You know that they say about arguing with fools.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 8, 2007 10:12 AMHere is the link--look at the first entry under November 7, 2007.
Iraq Photo
I, personally, advocate rapid troop withdrawal, but I can see the mainstream media and NPR are biased leftward, and I can see that Fox news and most talk radio shows are biased rightward. Indeed, it is the leftward bias that created the entrepreneurial opportunity that made Fox news and talk radio so successful. Rightward bias became a profitable niche market because so little objectivity was available in the mainstream. But the result is a loss of objectivity and an inbread, limited level of debate and discourse in the two media spheres. The left no longer engages the right and vice versa. They just talk to their own true believers and little real dialogue ensues.
But where is objectivity in the media? Even if perfect objectivity is impossible, shouldn't objectivity be the goal journalists strive for?
Forty years ago, the BBC was famous for objectivity. It's reporters had a reputation for telling the truth, asking smart, hard questions, and being independent inquirers. They didn't always succeed, but at least objectivity was the goal.
But the field of journalism had a philosophical shift in the early 70's. Objectivity was no longer the goal, once the liberal philosophy of relativism took hold. "There is no more objective truth, or reality, there is only your truth, and my truth." It is now a war of all against all, and few seek to know objective truth. It is almost Orwellian: "truth is perspective" instead of "truth is objective."
Until the journalism field returns to the goal of seeking objectivity, journalists will still be held in similar regard to used car salsmen and members of Congress.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 8, 2007 04:19 PMThere is a famous event from Roman history (It's in Tacitus and probably elsewhere) where a slave killed his master and the law at the time said that when this happens, all the slaves owned by that master had to be executed. This was 400 people. This caused protest and the leftists of the time thought the other slaves should be spared and the rightists thought they should be killed as per the law.
So, how should an objective reporter of today report this story--objectively, with equal time to spokespeople of both sides, or as the total outrage it was, kind of like the war in Iraq today.
I have the greatest respect for B. G., but objectivity is a kind of false god: it does not exist people who try just end up always seeking the mushy middle ground.
Thanks all, New left conservative # 1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on November 8, 2007 08:03 PM