A Sept. 14 Knight Ridder exclusive on anti-American guerrillas in Iraq caught a quick look at the secret forces that claim to have killed scores of U.S. troops there. But the story also aggravated raw animosities that persist between some readers and journalism.
Editors, some of whom questioned whether the story was developed well enough to run, felt the work carried value and justified enduring the criticism that it surely would incur as insolent disregard for the sacrifices of American lives in securing postwar Iraq.
The story ran on Page One. Managing Editor Kathy Vetter explained why in a paragraph that she inserted while editing the Star-Telegram version: The story offered “a glimpse of what U.S. troops are up against,” the paragraph said.
Furious reader reaction followed publication of the story.
Readers accused the reporting team — Hannah Allam, a staff writer for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and photojournalist Mandi Wright of the Detroit Free Press — of treason, sedition, aiding and abetting the murder of troops and other grievous acts.
At the heart of readers’ outrage was the perception that the report glamorized the alleged guerrillas (two young guerrillas, not leaders, were interviewed) in colorful, friendly prose that sympathized with their cause.
Several readers compared the report with actress Jane Fonda’s infamous visit to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, during which she vilified the United States and earned the moniker “Hanoi Jane.”
“Those reporters aren’t ‘telling the other side of the story,’” one reader said. “They are rank prostitutes and disloyal to their country.”
Turn now to what appears to be the villainous heart of journalism.
One cornerstone of the ethics that guide American journalists is, as the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics puts it, to “seek truth and act independently.”
Next, consider that the first priority in the “five W’s” is Who (then What, When, Where and Why).
Apply those factors to the situation in Iraq: Unknown forces are ambushing and killing U.S. forces.
Who are they? No one seems to know. Many people want an answer.
To a journalist, the situation logically demands independent inquiry and a report on what’s found about “Who.”
But what sort of report? Ideally, at least in my opinion, the package should be dispassionate for credibility’s sake — highly verified, sourced and documented, rich with details and perspectives from many angles, all of which inherently capture color and emotion with no embellishment, to avoid tawdry sensationalism.
We’ve often seen this sort of media work via independent efforts to profile mysterious psychopaths — bombers, terrorists, serial killers, drug lords, bizarre rebels and the like.
Nearly a year ago, for instance, the media was searching hard for leads on the sniper who was randomly killing people in the Washington area.
From my armchair, such motivation clearly drove the Knight Ridder story.
But the article’s credibility was doubly vulnerable to criticism that would cast it as a brazen romp with the enemy.
The work conceded verification difficulties. For example, the story was based on “interviews granted by people who are apparently killing Americans,” Amman wrote. And further into the story: “It is impossible to verify the men’s claims.”
That’s ethical editing at work, but the price of such honesty is the possibility of heightening reader skepticism.
Another vulnerability involved photography and writing to help readers see and feel exotic places and the people there. Amman and Wright provided many details, which to one reader somehow proved only that they were “siding with the terrorists.”
They weren’t. They were looking for “Who,” and they found a few pieces of the puzzle. I appreciated every word. Maybe the Pentagon did, too.
After all, as one reader said in support of the story, “We need all the information we can get.”
