by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
June 30, 2004
While testifying before the american armed Services Committee last week, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz accused the media in Iraq of not providing balanced coverage of the situation in the country. The Deputy Defense Secretary had said to the committee that "Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumours. and rumors are plentiful." He further added, "all media have some responsibility to try and present a balanced picture instead of always gravitating to the sensational."
Two days later, Wolfowitz issued an apology to the media. He acknowledged that 34 journalists had lost their lives covering the war and its aftermath and said that he knew that "many journalists continue to go out each day--in the most dangerous circumstances--to bring us coverage of the war in Iraq and afghanistan". He further expressed his "deep regret" for saying that journalists in Baghdad were too afraid to leave Baghdad to get stories.
as is not unusual, the media focused solely on Wolfowitz’s characterization of the media and not to the substance of his remarks. There was little discussion about whether what he said about the lack of balance in the coverage of Iraq was in any way true.
The media obviously focuses on the insurgence and spate of attacks and bombings that seem to be escalating as the United States has turned power over to the Iraqis. But there is a dearth of information coming out of the country about positive changes that have taken place in the country since the regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled. To use the cliché, are ordinary Iraqis better off now than they were four years ago?
The media hardly mentions Saddam Hussein except to report on what his likely future will be once the americans has turned over power. There is virtually nothing said about whether ordinary Iraqis, who live in areas that are not plagued by the violence, are living a better life than they did under the Saddam dictatorship. People who have been tortured by the former regime and who have had friends and family members killed are seldom asked for their opinions about everyday life in the country. and the history of such Iraqi institutions as abu Ghraib seems to have started when the americans assumed control.
The intemperance of Paul Wolfowitz’s comments does not detract from the point that he was trying to make--is the coverage of Iraq balanced?