Talk of the Town

"In one word, 'sanitized.' Although many correspondents were 'embedded' with various military units, we did not see the injuries and killing of the people of Iraq.

As a person who opposes the war against Iraq, in my opinion public television and public radio presented the best coverage of the war and related issues. CNN also did a good job, while the coverage on FOX was right-wing pro-war."

- Deb Staley, JO'70, support services staff, Mayo Foundation, Spring Valley, MN

" My neighbor, a retired North Carolina state trooper, had a son with the 3rd Army in Iraq. During the height of the war Ted Koppel was 'embedded' with the 3rd Army, so this family was grateful for the personal coverage of that outfit's movements and activity. However, as the war intensified, my neighbor indicated the family wished that the coverage was not so immediate or so graphic. In other words, they wished they didn't know so much. I think a lot of Americans felt that way. The coverage was a little too immediate and a little too graphic. In the long run, it may help us to be more thoughtful before going to war and committing our troops, because now we have seen war up close and personal."

- Bruce Thorsen, JO'70, Asheville, NC

" Peter Arnett, Geraldo Rivera, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, CNN, al-Jazeera ... enough said. What war were they covering? The content within many of their reports was filled with inaccuracies, lies, editorializing and political bias. Bernard Goldberg's book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News should be required reading in every newsroom and journalism school in this country. The bottom line is that the war coverage in Iraq was at best factually inconsistent, and at worst unreliable and inaccurate."

- Nick Colletti, J'77, regional sales manager, Interface Software, Oak Brook, IL

" I felt that the networks and CNN were much more biased in their assessment regarding the war coverage - almost as if they wanted things to go poorly for our troops and their efforts. I have become a new fan of Fox News, which provided a refreshing alternative."

- Doug Winslow, JO'73, human resources manager, RR Donnelley, Spartanburg, SC

" Press coverage of the war in Iraq can best be described as 'sanitized.' The embedded journalists must have been embedded in concrete for all the 'war news' hitting the airways. The horrors of war were omitted, as the military felt U.S. civilians 'could not handle the truth,' as the movie quote goes. Presidential press conferences revealed a docile press as serious questions of presented facts were not pressed. Where were the Sams and Saras of old press corps days? It was interesting that editorials generally spoke their minds and raised questions. Next time insist that reporters keep asking the hard questions and don't depend on handouts and the hospitality of the military."

- Herb Sawinski, JO'51, semi-retired editor/correspondent, Revisita Aerea magazine, Port St. Lucie, FL

" The war in Iraq was a major turning point for journalism and just may have changed what we used to know as 'reporting the facts' to 'reporting opinions with political biases.' Who would have ever expected a correspondent to get fired mid-war and the BBC of being exposed for not telling the truth by its own embedded field reporter? Like in war, there are winners and losers. It appears journalistic honesty and integrity had been hiding in a bunker and were taken out by joint direct attack munitions."

- Richard Grace, JO'86, regional sales manager, Sharp Microelectronics of the Americas, Huntington Beach, CA.

" I think that this country's coverage of the conflict with Iraq presents a false picture of the realities of war. It's completely sanitized. The majority of the U.S. media's footage consists of maps and aerial or infrared images, while the international press is much more willing to get real about how war affects the civilian population. If the U.S. media actually aired footage of the war's impact on real human lives, I think a lot more people in this country would question the way we went about resolving this conflict."

- Mariel Smejkal, JO'97, media supervisor, Starcom Worldwide, Chicago, IL

" The coverage reminded me of an NFL game commentary. Both sides' strengths and weaknesses were compared and discussed at length, the war (game) was covered with full play-by-play action calls, individual stars were selected for interviews during down times, there was a tremendous amount of hollow chitchat and the victory was announced at the end with full gala and celebration. I just hope there isn't a full season in regards to war."

- John Carpenter, JO'80

"I was beyond appalled at the attempted mea culpa of CNN that their coverage ignored the atrocities in their coverage. Thank God for FOX."

- Ron Read, JO'66

"The media coverage during the war with Iraq was tremendous. It showed Americans just how successful our military efforts were being carried out against the Iraqi military. In addition, the American media were able to dispel some of the Iraqi propaganda about our troops, their successes and attacks against civilians. Whether you were in support of our invasion or not, I think most journalists would agree that the coverage was some of the best in the history of broadcasting, and that it depicted the reality of fighting a war in desert conditions."

- Ryan Dick, JO'99, Two Rivers Marketing Group, Des Moines

" The press coverage of the war against Iraq is something that is seen as so 'natural' to many people. We think they are 'just doing their job.' But when you really think about the journalistic aspect of the reporting, it really is fascinating. Reporters are not only updating us, they are witnessing what they are updating, which makes the reporting so much stronger. It takes a strong mind and will to be able to report to the world on such a complicated, yet historical event."

- Erica Basofin, JO'01, Drake MPA graduate student, Des Moines

"This reminds me of a question Dr. Strentz would have asked in our journalism ethics class.

While I am by no means a proponent of the war in Iraq, I found the coverage of anti-war protests to be blatantly excessive and to reveal the national media's liberal motives. It's as American as apple pie ... given the opportunity to glorify the negative, anti-conservative side of an issue, you can bet all the major networks will do so. As the saying goes, 'You are what you eat.' Likewise, I believe the media knows you are what you watch. As Americans, we're taught to strive for healthy, happy, prosperous lives. In such spirit, rather than subjecting myself to the demoralizing and liberal-biased antiwar coverage, I peeled this potato off the couch, turned the boob-tube off and happily headed out to exercise - so I don't become what I eat, or what I watch."

- Sarah Kramer, JO'98, GR'01, senior communications specialist, Sisters of Mercy Health System

" Although we are not yet through receiving, processing and analyzing the Iraq War coverage, a few patterns have emerged.

The first two casualties of the war were objectivity and accuracy, the latter a frequent casualty in the scramble to 'get it first' rather than 'get it right.' Other than newspaper, news magazine and network coverage, most of what I have followed was on the Fox News Channel, a network with a decidedly conservative editorial platform. They were at once trying to wrest the 24-hour news channel crown away from CNN (they succeeded) and pursue an agenda, seeking evidence to validate President Bush's decision to go to war and hyping the slightest evidence of leadership kills and captures, the ties between Iraq and international terrorism, as well as the much-discussed weapons of mass destruction. The print media and networks, on the other hand, frequently evidenced an opposing mission, to cast doubt upon Bush's decision, underscore failures in our conduct of the war and stress collateral damage and human suffering that are inevitable consequences of war. RIP, objectivity and accuracy. Ratings and sales have replaced those principal tenets of journalism.

Reportage of the shifting worldwide alliances begged the question of what was cause and what was effect. France is the primary example. Criticism of their betrayal of the U.S. was not totally undeserved but completed the process of sullying an already badly damaged image we perceive of our former allies. Ditto Canada and Germany, vital allies in terms of proximity and cultural relevance, respectively.

But the media served us well, I believe, when it cautioned us that in a sense we will be at war with a huge and rapidly growing element of the world's population. Perhaps it's time to reread George Orwell, but never have the shifting sands of world diplomacy shifted more quickly than in the past few years. New alliances, commonly among strange bedfellows, and an unprecedented hostility toward the U.S. and our position in the world, must be studied and understood if we are to maintain our leadership role.

And professional communicators will have to shoulder the burden of keeping us reminded of new realities."

- Thomas K. Lauterback, JO'66, principal, Lexes Unlimited, Elgin, IL

" During the heat of the war, the press was at a distinct disadvantage because Fox and CNN gave us up-to-the-minute news and action photography. CBS and NBC did a good job of summarizing. The press was not an essential element for hard news, but the newspapers and news magazines I read filled a gap with features. The Des Moines Register did an excellent job with photos and news geared to Iowans in the war effort. I spent more time with TV during the war period than I usually do because the networks did in-depth reporting."

- Jack Watson, JO'42, retired, Des Moines

The opinions expressed in Talk of the Town are those of the individual respondents and do not necessarily reflect those of Drake University or its School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

index