The stories and photos in The Sacramento Bee this past week reflected some of the harsh realities of war in Iraq and at home, and the complex political debates all around the globe. Some readers would have preferred their news reports a bit simpler. Us versus them. Good guys versus bad guys. Good countries versus bad countries.
Or better yet: a quick and happy ending.
But reality was different. Sandstorms slowed advancing troops. Combat action, friendly-fire accidents and deceptive Iraqi tactics killed soldiers and civilians. Governments claimed the enemy violated the rules of war. Major Iraqi troop movements were reported one day, and then dismissed as insignificant the next. Armies were stalled one day, and moved rapidly the next.
The biggest problem for newspaper editors continues to be making sense out of multiple events, conflicting claims and rumors, and wrapping it all up in a sensible package once every 24 hours. Day after day after day.
Not everyone was happy with the effort this week.
Complaints with zeal
The majority of complaints about news coverage of the war in Iraq came from readers who are convinced the war is either absolutely right or terribly wrong. Few shades of gray appear in the strongly worded complaints that arrived at The Bee.
After a military spokesman on television declined to provide an estimate of civilian casualties in the war, one reader immediately complained that the media were falling down on the job. He assumed The Bee was not reporting estimates of civilian casualties. He suggested an anti-war Web site as a source. The Bee has routinely published civilian casualty estimates from the Iraqi government, with that source carefully noted.
After the Thursday morning newspaper hit the streets, the telephone rang with complaints that The Bee said civilian casualties in Baghdad were the fault of the U.S. military. The Bee actually reported that casualties “possibly” resulted from an errant Cruise missile, an accident, a possibility the U.S. military acknowledged. The Bee also reported that military officials were still investigating and had suggested that “an Iraqi misfire” might have caused the damage.
Another reader attacked editors with strong language for “ignoring” stories about Iraqi government atrocities. A Page 1 story that same day quoted angry U.S. soldiers accusing Iraqis of illegal acts, including using children and killing civilians.
Based solely on complaints, it would appear that every reader has strong convictions about the U.S. government’s actions, whether in support or opposition, and dislikes the way the war has been reported.
But given the zeal of those who did call, and how few there were, it is clear that most readers had not been heard from. Your input would be welcomed.
The newspaper is different from other media in that it has an opportunity to provide some context, unlike a broadcaster ducking bombs, but always faces the risk of being a bit stale. By the time this newspaper delivered the photo of soldiers stalled by a dust storm, the skies cleared and the 3rd Infantry Division was on the move again.
One photo — a dead soldier, civilian victims of war or a prisoner mistreated — can have more impact than a thousand-word story carefully explaining events. But these remain snapshots of a true moment in time, not the big picture.
Some readers felt the newspaper was doing a good job covering the war, and called to say so.
Several praised the “On the Front Line” war diary published daily in graphic form. The graphic provided a map of the previous day’s major battles and action, a recap of casualties and prisoners and even a clock to show readers what time it is in Iraq compared to Sacramento. Some readers mentioned that they were relying upon the newspaper to provide understanding for complex events.
Thursday morning’s front page was a reminder of what a newspaper can do best, where it can miss a beat and why some people react so strongly.
One day this week
The major photo on the page was one of Iraqi civilian casualties of war, taken early in the day Wednesday and based on a single event reported repeatedly all day long by broadcast media. It was dramatic, accurate, significant and old news by Thursday morning. The editors published it after lengthy discussion.
The biggest headline of the day said, “New view on war: Months, not weeks.” That was an accurate reflection of a reasonable analysis by a Washington Post writer. But the subject of the war’s expected duration had been the topic of intense media discussion going back to Tuesday. It was not really new, but offered some context.
The major news of the war’s events was covered thoroughly in a long, detailed and well-reported story. It was on Page 1, on the bottom third of the page, with a small one-column headline: “U.S. planes hit convoy near capital.” That story had the latest details of numerous events from the preceding day, including action from the night before.
The story was the one most readers would be looking for to find out what happened, based on what readers often say they want. Unfortunately, less than three inches of the story made the front page, and that story was dominated by a dramatic but unrelated photo.
Another war story, “Enemy tactics blend cruelty, cunning,” was at the very bottom of the page. It provided revealing details from soldiers about what the battles were really like. The enemy was immoral, cruel and unfair, in the view of U.S. soldiers.
Editors pointed out afterward that no single day or page can tell the story correctly, and if you review front pages and inside pages for the entire week, you will have a reasonably clear picture of events.
They are correct, and the problems I saw with the Thursday front page — it could have been better — were minor compared to the week’s overall effort.
The reader who claimed editors are “greedy and amoral” because the news that day did not agree with his personal views is wrong.
The role of the newspaper has not changed with the advent of war. It owes readers and citizens accurate information and insights so they can decide for themselves what they think.
Those few readers who are looking for unquestioning support of their individual views will continue to be disappointed.
