TV Sanitized the Iraq Conflict, But a Paper Gets the Hate Mail
There must have been two wars in Iraq (news - web sites). There was the war I saw and wrote about as a print journalist embedded with a tank company of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized). Then there was the war that many Americans saw, or wanted to see, on TV.
That is the only conclusion I can draw while going through the e-mail messages I have received from irate readers whose view of the televised war from the warm comfort of their living rooms did not match the war I reported on. "Do us a favor, stay in Iraq. We don't need reporters who are un-American," urged one man.
I saw and wrote about a war that was confusing and chaotic, as are all wars. It was a war in which plans and missions changed almost daily - and on one occasion changed three times in an hour. It was a war in which civilians died and were horribly wounded. It was a war in which soldiers questioned the intelligence they received, the logistics lines that had trouble supplying them with water and spare parts, and the reasons they were fighting the war.
Apparently that is not the war the TV-viewing and occasional newspaper-reading public wanted to see or thought it saw. But, according to a recent study by the Readership Institute, a large percentage of Americans preferred to get their war news from TV and not from newspapers. The war they saw, or thought they saw, on TV was meticulously planned, flawlessly executed - and not a single member of the armed forces had a complaint or problem. Few civilians died in that war.
The unit that Brant Sanderlin, a photographer for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and I were with was part of Task Force 1-64 of the 3rd Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team. It led the division into Baghdad on what was later referred to as the "Thunder Run" of April 5. Two days later, it again was at the head of the Army convoy that went into Baghdad to stay. The closest TV crew was from Fox and was consistently behind us with the brigade commander.
When I wrote in one story about "bloody street fighting in Baghdad," it appeared the morning TV viewers were seeing jubilant Marines and Iraqi civilians tearing down statues of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on the eastern side of the Tigris River. Some readers, believing all of Baghdad was like that, were livid. They did not grasp the fact that, on the western side of the river, pitched battles were still taking place. Because they did not see it on TV, it was not happening. And it did not fit their view of the war.
Many who wrote me questioned not only my patriotism but my ancestry and my sexual orientation. Many fell back on the old canard that all media are left-wingers.
"Ron, if it's going so badly, why don't you just join the other side and cheer for them instead?" wrote one.
"Millions of patriotic Americans are just sick and tried of the constant hate the military, hate Bush, hate America drivel you spew forth masquerading as 'good' journalism," wrote another.
And from yet another came this: "I understand al-Jazzera (sic) is looking for some new talent. Based on this article, I would say you have all the qualifications, or maybe you are already working for them."
One woman even suggested I start watching more Fox TV to get an unbiased view of the war. I resisted the urge to tell her that the TV reception was miserable in the back of the armored personnel carrier in which I was riding.
The criticism was not limited to me. They even criticized soldiers for doing what all soldiers do - complain. When I voiced complaints from soldiers about lack of mail, water, and spare parts, they were called "whiners" and "crybabies." And when I quoted one soldier who had been under fire almost daily for four weeks complaining about faulty intelligence, one reader suggested he be stripped of his uniform and sent home in disgrace.
A friend recently told me she believes TV has significantly "dumbed down" the American public and lowered the collective IQ. After seeing and hearing the public reaction to this war, I am beginning to believe she is right.
I thought embedded print journalists were doing the public a service by giving them a close-up, personal view of the war without it being filtered through military minders and censors. Apparently, the public, at least that part of the public that prefers to get its news from TV, does not want that. What they seemed to want from this war was for the coverage to fit their own biases and preconceived notions. No other views were tolerated. And TV seems in large part to have given them exactly what they wanted.
--Ron Martz , a former Marine, is military-affairs reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.