[Media-watch] What readers saw and didn't see ( Washington Post..
again) - Washington Post - 5/12/2004
Julie-ann Davies
jadavies2004 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Dec 6 18:17:36 GMT 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36067-2004Dec4.html
Ombudsman
What Readers Saw, and Didn't See
By Michael Getler
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B06
What follows are observations by readers about a couple of items that
appeared in the paper last week and an observation of mine about a story
that didn't appear.
Last Saturday, The Post published a letter on the Free For All page from a
reader objecting to the label that the paper has used for many months at the
top of pages carrying news about the war in Iraq. The label reads "Postwar
Iraq" and the reader called attention to the "stupidity" of such a label
over stories with headlines such as, "In Fallujah, Marines Feel Shock of
War." Actually, several readers have made this point to me, so I was glad to
see the letter published and remiss in not raising the issue myself. Since
the letter appeared, others have written to agree with the writer and to
make the point, again, that "the war is not over." The editors are taking
this under consideration.
Also last Saturday, The Post ran a powerful story on the front page of the
Metro section by Ian Shapira headlined "Va. Wife Slain After Court Denies
Protection; Estranged Husband Arrested in Florida." Sarah Crawford, the
story reported, had pleaded with a Prince William County judge to make her
estranged husband -- who she said had beaten and threatened to kill her --
stay away from her. She was granted a temporary protective order, but the
judge declined to extend it at another hearing and, six days later, the
woman was found shot to death in a Charlottesville hotel room.
The article includes the names of the victim, her husband, the local
attorney and the victim's parents, and even the make, model and color of her
car. But the judge is not identified, nor is there any indication that The
Post tried to reach him or her. Several readers complained, properly, about
what seemed to be an inexcusable omission.
Then, on Wednesday, The Post ran a two-sentence item midway down in its
corrections box on Page A2, stating that the original story "may have left
the impression" that the judge declined to extend the restraining order but
that "additional court documents show that the protective order was
dismissed at Crawford's request." Wow! "May have left the impression"? The
headline and the story clearly said so. This is the kind of "correction"
that should have been a follow-up story instead, correcting the original
report and explaining in a more forthright and visible way how this
happened.
The story that didn't appear in The Post is about a 102-page report by a
task force of the Defense Science Board, a federal advisory committee
composed of academic, think tank and private-sector representatives who
provide independent advice to the secretary of defense. The report had not
been made public until after the New York Times wrote about it on Nov. 24,
followed by the Associated Press and other news organizations.
In some ways, the report -- titled "Strategic Communications" -- is dry,
bureaucratic fodder. But deep inside, it goes to the heart of both the war
on terrorism and the war in Iraq, and it raises many crucial issues that
don't get probed deeply enough by news organizations, in my opinion.
The report comes at an interesting time. President Bush, on many occasions
when speaking of Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda network and the "nature of
the terrorist enemy," has said: "They hate us. And they hate freedom. And
they hate people who embrace freedom." Last week, in a television interview,
Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said, "We know there's
another attack coming. You and I can't say if it's next week or six months
from now, but it's coming." In recent weeks, there have been new statements
from bin Laden (on Oct. 29) and his top deputy and strategist, Ayman
Zawahiri (on Nov. 29). Zawahiri was quoted as saying: "You must choose
between two methods in dealing with Muslims. Cooperate with them based on
mutual respect and interests or deal with them as if they are spoils of war.
This is your problem, and you must choose. And you should know that we are a
nation of patience, and we will continue fighting you until the last hour."
Now comes the Pentagon's advisory board with a sharply critical report that
says U.S. efforts to separate "the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from
the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists . . . have not only failed . . .
they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."
Here are some of the key points:
. "American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically
elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing
support for the U.S. to single-digits in some Arab societies."
. "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies.
The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as
one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the
longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as
tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf
states."
. Since Sept. 11, 2001, "American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their
legitimacy among Muslims. What was a marginal network," the report said, is
now a community-wide "movement of fighting groups."
. "Muslims," the board says, "see Americans as strangely narcissistic --
namely, that the war is all about us . . . no more than an extension of
American domestic politics and its great game." The critical problem for
American public diplomacy, the section concludes, is "a fundamental problem
of credibility. Simply, there is none -- the United States today is without
a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."
More information about the Media-watch
mailing list