Armchair Generals and Spoiled Reporters make Coverage Biased and Bland

The last few days has brought us a number of significant events on the battlefields of Iraq.  United States forces are within miles of Baghdad, the air bombardment of Republican Guard and command and control continues in efforts to weaken the resolve and fire power of Saddam’s forces, and the media have opened a salvo of rhetoric reminiscent of the 1970s where terms like “quagmire” and “bogged down” dominate news stories and commentary. 

To the cynical viewer or reader of newspapers it was almost as if news organizations got together to resurrect terms long since abandoned in hopes that it would deflect from the overwhelming public support by the American people of the war in Iraq.  To a less cynical viewer it could be that newspapers and broadcast media are just immature and are having the journalistic equivalent of a “Daddy are we there yet?” fit.  Either way, the war is going well, but you wouldn’t know it if you listen or read much of the American news or Saddam's Ministry of Information.

Many networks have “embedded” reporters with military units who are in actual battle and making their way to Baghdad.  I’ve made it a point to watch and listen to the embedded reporters of many of the broadcast networks as well as all three cable news networks.  To say that the coverage differs is to state the obvious, but the difference in coverage would be comical if it were not so serious.

FoxNews reporters seem to have an edge when it comes to reporting the events unfolding on the battlefield as well as understanding the context in which the events are happening.  Take the recent reports of soldiers and Marines not having enough food.  Single instances of a soldier or Marine not getting two or three Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) took on a life of its own with many networks.  One CNN reporter embedded with the troops completely disregarded the fact that the unit he was with made a 250 mile trip from Kuwait to the outskirts of Baghdad in record time and spent time complaining about hygiene and lack of food, as if his hunger were the news and the mass movement of armor, ammunition, and troops was secondary. 

A reporter for MSNBC made a point of talking about lags in logistics, but when he talked to a soldier about it, the soldier discounted his complaints and went on to say hi to his mother and father.  Only the reporters for Fox seem to have the common sense and experience to put in some meaningful context that in war sometimes MREs don’t show up right on time and that showers are not something that matter when the enemy is shooting at you.  CNN and MSNBC need to understand and learn that they are not in Manhattan anymore and that when they signed up for their gig to travel with soldiers and Marines that their accommodations were not going to be equivalent to the Waldorf-Astoria and their dining options would be limited.

All of the networks and cable news channels have brought out of retirement just about every general officer that has retired over the course of the last decade as well as a cadre of retired colonels and majors – some have even brought sergeants who fought in this conflict or that on to review the non-published war plan and analyze the events unfolding half a world away.  To be a retired general officer today is to assure yourself a job commenting on a war you didn’t plan, logistics you didn’t coordinate, and a battle you have no stake other than being an American in winning. 

Generals in the comfort of studios in New York or Washington with fancy screen writers and full scale maps where they can literally step on Baghdad with their right foot while stomping on Tikrit with the other don’t have the obligations of battle, nor the information that generals in the field have, but they sure like to comment on it.

It is no secret that with rank comes privileges and a certain degree of respect, but consider the career paths of many commentators who second guess commanders on the ground.  Many of the commentators were either logistic officers or non-combat arms commanders whose contact with the enemy was minimal and whose office at the Pentagon offered a clear view of the battle field via video screen.  Lower ranking commentators have even less experience and those with experience spent decades in the military and rose to ranks less than many in similar situations. 

Others commentate as if they were war heroes and Delta Force or SEALS, but who retired after attaining the rank of mere captain or sergeant.  Retiring as a captain from the army or a sergeant from the Marine Corps hardly makes one an expert in anything.  I’m certainly no expert on war planning, but it will only be a matter of time before the networks run out of people to fill their 24 hour a day cycles and with my experience in the military I, too, will end up talking about a war plan I’ve never seen and speculating on battles I will never fight.  I've been to two combat zones - does that make me a good candidate for commenting on this war?

This past weekend the wire services announced that the military was going into a 4 to 6 day holding pattern where the advance toward Baghdad would be halted.  The reports came across the wires and Saddam Hussein’s propaganda machine picked up on it quick with the help of Peter Arnett of MSNBC who reported that Saddam was stopping the American and British military from advancing.  Speculation about a halt to the fighting was rampant and both the Pentagon and Central Command denied that there was any slow down to the advance to Baghdad. 

Those denials didn’t matter, though, as all the networks reported the story as if it were fact – despite the fact that they reported a halt to the advance as their own embedded reporters were moving north and the bombs continued to fall on Baghdad and the Republican Guard.  As recently as an hour ago on an update at the top of the hour as I write this piece – a major network reported “massive bombardment continues in Baghdad” as a “4-6 day halt in the war” kicked in.  You would think a network news organization would see the tragic mistake made when they report massive bombing one minute and a halt to war the next, but no matter – the halt was reported because of supply delays in the lines to forces and resistance of the Iraqi forces (so says Peter Arnett and other media obviously working for Saddam). 

The final indignity to reporting of the war comes from a number of sources who complain that one network is being “too patriotic” in their reporting of the war.  Complaints started from a college professor in New York who editorialized that the FoxNews Channel was not being impartial when it came to reporting on the war.  The premise was interesting, but utterly absurd – the professor and people who think like him believe that news organizations should be impartial as to who should win the war and when talking about casualties that they should devote more time to civilians in Baghdad than US and British troops.

Bill O’Reilly had the professor on his program, whose name shall not be mentioned for the insanity of his proposition makes his name as worthless as his thought, and he actually argued that the American flag the network places in the corner of the screen and some reporters referring to US troops as “our” troops made the network biased against Saddam Hussein!  Of course they are biased against Saddam Hussein – we are at war with him!  The notion that patriotism and the desire that our nation win a war against a tyrant like Saddam Hussein should be tossed out the window is ridiculous.  Can you imagine reporters during World War II or any other conflict reporting on the news as if they didn’t care whether or not the United States won?  Where do these people come from?

News reports from embedded reporters at FoxNews are worth watching.  They are informative and provide great insight into what our Marines and soldiers are actually going through.  They report the way the troops would have them report - with a seriousness of purpose, but knowing that there is also a certain level of reality that kicks in when you're in the field.  Marines and soldiers in the field talk like anyone else, complain like everyone would expect, and entertain themselves when there is down time.  Rick Leventhal is traveling with Marines and he understands the rank structure and acronyms that Marines use.  Many reporters on other networks call Marines soldiers and use acronyms that, when challenged, they can't explain.  Greg Kelly, a former Marine pilot, is traveling with the army and his reporting is top notch.  That experience alone gives him far more credibility than reporters on other networks whose experience with the military was reporting on scandals and movie reviews of military themed movies.

CNN and MSNBC should have considered embedding people who were not going to complain about sand in the dessert or missing a meal or two.  The networks are even worse – ABC has to be the worst with CBS then NBC (who piggy backs MSNBC) close behind.  Reports from analysts is tiring as they repeat the same predictions over and over again – I mean you don’t really have to have been a general or a colonel to figure out that we intend on bombing the Republican Guard into submission and moving on Baghdad when we are ready.  I wasn’t close to a colonel and could tell you that.

Reporting on this war has become a competition and there is one winner – hands down.  FoxNews Channel has everyone beat – if for no other reason than their reporters don’t make up scandals and they report the war from a soldier’s or Marines perspective instead of their own pampered point of view.  When this is all over – someone ought to write a law forbidding arm chair generals and selfish and inexperienced combat reporters from embedding with men and women who deserve more than what ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS has given them.