Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Media on Iraq: Losing is Winning

Former Harvard government professor James Q. Wilson has written a very long City Journal article about the media’s hostility to war and professional military. Here are highly selective excerpts:

When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts, it found that during the active war against Saddam Hussein, 51 percent of the reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle ended, 77 percent were negative; in the 2004 general election, 89 percent were negative; by the spring of 2006, 94 percent were negative. This decline in media support was much faster than during Korea or Vietnam. . . People who oppose the entire War on Terror run much of the national press, and they go to great lengths to make waging it difficult. . .

[Of course, it began in Vietnam.] When Douglas Kinnard questioned more than 100 American generals who served in Vietnam, 92 percent said that newspaper coverage was often irresponsible or disruptive, and 96 percent said that television coverage on balance lacked context and was sensational or counterproductive.

An analysis of CBS’s Vietnam coverage in 1972 and 1973 supports their views. The Institute for American Strategy found that, of about 800 references to American policy and behavior, 81 percent were critical. Of 164 references to North Vietnamese policy and behavior, 57 percent were supportive. . .

Sociologist James D. Wright directly measured the impact of press coverage by comparing the support for the war among white people of various social classes who read newspapers and news magazines with the support found among those who did not look at these periodicals very much. By 1968, when most news magazines and newspapers had changed from supporting the war to opposing it, backing for the war collapsed among upper-middle-class readers of news stories, from about two-thirds who supported it in 1964 to about one-third who supported it in 1968. Strikingly, opinion did not shift much among working-class voters, no matter whether they read these press accounts or not. . .

But in the Vietnam era, an important restraint on sectarian partisanship still operated: the mass media catered to a mass audience and hence had an economic interest in appealing to as broad a public as possible. Today, however, we are in the midst of a fierce competition among media outlets, with newspapers trying, not very successfully, to survive against 24/7 TV and radio news coverage and the Internet. As a consequence of this struggle, radio, magazines, and newspapers are engaged in niche marketing, seeking to mobilize not a broad market but a specialized one, either liberal or conservative. . .

Focusing ever more sharply on the mostly bicoastal, mostly liberal elites, and with their more conservative audience lost to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, mainstream outlets like the New York Times have become more nakedly partisan. And in the Iraq War, they have kept up a drumbeat of negativity that has had a big effect on elite and public opinion alike. Thanks to the power of these media organs, reduced but still enormous, many Americans are coming to see the Iraq War as Vietnam redux. . .

[A deep] suspicion, fueled in part by the Vietnam and Watergate controversies, means that the government, especially if it is a conservative one, is surrounded by journalists who doubt almost all it says. One obvious result is that since World War II there have been few reports of military heroes; indeed, there have been scarcely any reports of military victories. . .

The mainstream media’s adversarial stance, both here and abroad, means that whenever a foreign enemy challenges us, he will know that his objective will be to win the battle not on some faraway bit of land but among the people who determine what we read and watch. We won the Second World War in Europe and Japan, but we lost in Vietnam and are in danger of losing in Iraq and Lebanon in the newspapers, magazines, and television programs we enjoy.

3 comments:

Derek said...

Hi Dad,

Just one question for you: By what metric, and according to what logic, would you consider the Iraq War a success, that is, a war that we are winning rather than losing?

This is what I am really curious about. Because if we are losing in Iraq, and the media are reporting that we are losing, and the public at large believes that we are losing, then that would provide no evidence of media bias - quite the contrary.

Thanks!

Love,
Derek

Galen Fox said...

I don't think we are winning, but to whom are we losing? It's possible we are winning against the Sunni-based insurgency. The level of violence is currently going up, but it may be a mistake to disconnect the level of violence from the obvious signs America is losing its stomach for Iraq. Al-Qaeda is pushing up the level of violence in the hope of getting us out, one could argue.

My metrics, to answer your "one question" are here:

http://capitalismdemocracypeace.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraq-worst-month-in-years.html

Derek said...

Hi Dad,

Thanks for the response. I have seen your metrics, and your metrics indicate that we are losing.

We are losing in Iraq, not necessarily because some aspects of the situation are not improving, but because the situation is not improving fast enough to justify our ongoing sacrifice of troops and expenditure of dollars, and the day to day sacrifices of the Iraqis whose lives we are supposed to be improving.

Given this state of affairs - we are losing in Iraq, the media are reporting that we are losing in Iraq, and the public believes we are losing in Iraq - I do not see how your original claim of media bias can be sustained. When the media report the truth, that is not bias, no matter how much we might wish for it to be otherwise.

Aloha,
Derek