Good vs. Bad News

"The latest ploy of the Bush administration is to claim that journalists are presenting a distorted picture of Iraq and that things over there are much better than you would think from the news coverage," writes Charley Reese. "This is clever, because like all good propaganda it contains an element of truth."

He continues,

It's true that some Iraqis like Americans. It's true that some Iraqis hate Americans. It's true that some Americans are doing good deeds. It is also true that some Americans are killing innocent people and stealing personal property in the homes they search. It's true that some Iraqis wave and smile. It's true that some Iraqis give Americans the middle-finger salute. It's true that there is a guerrilla war going on. It's true that efforts are being made to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. In short, the "truth" about Iraq is as complex as the country itself and is impossible for one reporter to convey.

To get as complete a picture of Iraq as possible, you have to read reports from many different sources. You can do that on the Internet. You can read British and French accounts. You can read pieces by Arab reporters. You can read reports by American peace activists in Iraq. Don't expect to find a single "objective" source. Objective journalism is another contradiction in terms. All journalism is subjective, because reporters have no choice but to filter what they learn through their own matrix of experiences, knowledge, attitudes and, yes, prejudices, not to mention the prejudices of their bosses.

Excellent points, of course.

It's nonetheless hard to spin news like the retraction of aid workers, the growing discontent amongst Shi'ites, and the further collapse of Iraq's economy as positive developments. Pro-warriors can look for gems amongst the rubble, but I suspect that this call for positive spin is driven more by their inability to come to grips with the overwhelming tenor of the poor news coming out of the country.