Monday, February 27, 2006
UnTimely TIME ?
It's only February 27, but you can see the March 6, 2006 cover and table of contents of TIME Magazine here. The Theme is Iraq at the Breaking Point; the cover shows rioters with a large photo poster sign of Muqtada al Sadr; the contents include 3 articles ranging from muderous rage and US powerlessness to Muqtada as our savior.
Good job from Time; they've gone from a too-late to be interesting overblown Cheny bashing issue to a too-late to reflect the facts on the ground Bush-Iraq bashing issue. Do we have a trend here? Besides an anti-US government lack of balance? How about too late to reflect current facts and interests?
Yesterday, I posted what the Iraq and Arab Media were reporting about the Mosque bombing situation - it was more concerning than catastrophic and noted the talks and agreements being made by Irag political and religious leaders. Also yesterday, as a timely counterpoint to TIME's photos of rioters, you could see photos of peace demonstrators on the Gateway Pundit: Unity Protests Break Out in Basra, Mosul, Hillah, Al Kut, Karbala .... and learn that: "Many Iraqi cities witnessed large demonstrations after Friday prayers (yesterday). These demonstrations were calling for national unity, not being pulled into civil war after attacks on Sunni mosques as retaliation to the bombing of the samara Shiite shrine."
The Gateway Pundit post cites large numbers of demonstrators (over 15,000 at Amarah alone ) at each of several cities in Iraq; and even in London. If the numbers are accurate, there would have been a great many more peace demonstrators than rioters in the streets of Iraq. Why wouldn't that be a big story for a big magazine to emphasize? One of GP's photos shows Iraqi marchers with a big poster of al Sistani who is the top Shia cleric. Why wouldn't that make a good magazine cover ?
Why indeed? Perhaps it's just the old media "if it bleeds; it leads" attitude. Perhaps TIME prefers "Rage" to "Peace". Or perhaps, the media bias against this administation is too strong to permit a positive pro-America slant on the Iraq war interfere with it's mood setting for the November elections. I do hope that is not the reason; this war is for America's security. War is always tough, uncertain and often unclearly perceived. But Victory in Iraq is a win-win for both American security and Iraqi freedom. If our news media can't get behind that goal and support it in the information conflict being waged for the mind and will of the American public, then the very least the media could do is to be balanced in it's reportage and imagery.
Some of the best balanced and timely reporting is being done by Bill Roggio who has returned from his self-deployed embedded tour in Iraq. His post today provides a timely contast to TIME and, if you check his blog regularly, you get quick updates as the situation changes.
From todays, The Fourth Rail: Iraq “Civil War” Sitrep II: "It is quite difficult at this point in time to sort out the 'day to day' insurgency related violence from the violence related to the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. ...
The fighting in Baghdad's Doura district is the heaviest, with 15 killed and 45 wounded during mortar exchanges. Journalists/blogger Christopher Albritton, who is living in Baghdad, was extremely negative about the prospects on February 25th ... and was predicting an all out collapse of the government and full blown civil war. ..... Today, Mr. Allbritton backtracks (“Well, maybe I spoke too soon.”) and reports the Iraqi Security Forces along with Coalition air support are engaging in Doura."
By the way, Doura is a dangerous place populated by Sunni and Shiai residents and serving as the primary locale for al Qaeda fighters in Baghdad. From Mr. Albritton's web site, I note that he writes for TIME Magazine, among others, and he makes his anti- Bush, anti-Iraq government bias obvious in his site postings (e.g. in 2004, he predicted the government would collapse and that Sadr was extremely popular and would be victorious). That didn't happen; but the TIME cover show a poster-picture of Sadr. Hmm.. Wonder if TIME used his reporting and if so whether they balanced it with other views?
As a reference point on balance, Roggio's Sitrep II post cites / links five specific nows sources as well as a collection of posts on Iraqi intra- faction, or Red-on-Red fighting ,between insurgents, tribes and al-Qaeda. Roggio also reminds us that "oversimplification of Shiite and Sunni relations is a big source of misinformation in the press."; and concludes with "The sectarian devides exist, and have existed for hundreds of years, and should not be oversimplified or confused with a civil war." An important distinction for a balanced view of the fighting in Iraq.
Good job from Time; they've gone from a too-late to be interesting overblown Cheny bashing issue to a too-late to reflect the facts on the ground Bush-Iraq bashing issue. Do we have a trend here? Besides an anti-US government lack of balance? How about too late to reflect current facts and interests?
Yesterday, I posted what the Iraq and Arab Media were reporting about the Mosque bombing situation - it was more concerning than catastrophic and noted the talks and agreements being made by Irag political and religious leaders. Also yesterday, as a timely counterpoint to TIME's photos of rioters, you could see photos of peace demonstrators on the Gateway Pundit: Unity Protests Break Out in Basra, Mosul, Hillah, Al Kut, Karbala .... and learn that: "Many Iraqi cities witnessed large demonstrations after Friday prayers (yesterday). These demonstrations were calling for national unity, not being pulled into civil war after attacks on Sunni mosques as retaliation to the bombing of the samara Shiite shrine."
The Gateway Pundit post cites large numbers of demonstrators (over 15,000 at Amarah alone ) at each of several cities in Iraq; and even in London. If the numbers are accurate, there would have been a great many more peace demonstrators than rioters in the streets of Iraq. Why wouldn't that be a big story for a big magazine to emphasize? One of GP's photos shows Iraqi marchers with a big poster of al Sistani who is the top Shia cleric. Why wouldn't that make a good magazine cover ?
Why indeed? Perhaps it's just the old media "if it bleeds; it leads" attitude. Perhaps TIME prefers "Rage" to "Peace". Or perhaps, the media bias against this administation is too strong to permit a positive pro-America slant on the Iraq war interfere with it's mood setting for the November elections. I do hope that is not the reason; this war is for America's security. War is always tough, uncertain and often unclearly perceived. But Victory in Iraq is a win-win for both American security and Iraqi freedom. If our news media can't get behind that goal and support it in the information conflict being waged for the mind and will of the American public, then the very least the media could do is to be balanced in it's reportage and imagery.
Some of the best balanced and timely reporting is being done by Bill Roggio who has returned from his self-deployed embedded tour in Iraq. His post today provides a timely contast to TIME and, if you check his blog regularly, you get quick updates as the situation changes.
From todays, The Fourth Rail: Iraq “Civil War” Sitrep II: "It is quite difficult at this point in time to sort out the 'day to day' insurgency related violence from the violence related to the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. ...
The fighting in Baghdad's Doura district is the heaviest, with 15 killed and 45 wounded during mortar exchanges. Journalists/blogger Christopher Albritton, who is living in Baghdad, was extremely negative about the prospects on February 25th ... and was predicting an all out collapse of the government and full blown civil war. ..... Today, Mr. Allbritton backtracks (“Well, maybe I spoke too soon.”) and reports the Iraqi Security Forces along with Coalition air support are engaging in Doura."
By the way, Doura is a dangerous place populated by Sunni and Shiai residents and serving as the primary locale for al Qaeda fighters in Baghdad. From Mr. Albritton's web site, I note that he writes for TIME Magazine, among others, and he makes his anti- Bush, anti-Iraq government bias obvious in his site postings (e.g. in 2004, he predicted the government would collapse and that Sadr was extremely popular and would be victorious). That didn't happen; but the TIME cover show a poster-picture of Sadr. Hmm.. Wonder if TIME used his reporting and if so whether they balanced it with other views?
As a reference point on balance, Roggio's Sitrep II post cites / links five specific nows sources as well as a collection of posts on Iraqi intra- faction, or Red-on-Red fighting ,between insurgents, tribes and al-Qaeda. Roggio also reminds us that "oversimplification of Shiite and Sunni relations is a big source of misinformation in the press."; and concludes with "The sectarian devides exist, and have existed for hundreds of years, and should not be oversimplified or confused with a civil war." An important distinction for a balanced view of the fighting in Iraq.
