The New Republic (a magazine I occasionally read and enjoy) seems to have an issue with vetting its stories. It was burned some years back by Stephen Glass, who basically completely fabricated well over 40 stories, some of great importance, and its now found itself having to explain why it didn’t adequately fact-check and corroborate a story, supposedly from Iraq, from a pseudonymous active duty soldier who goes by the name of “Scott Thomas.” Needless to say, just about anybody who’s ever had “boots on the ground” in similar situations finds Mr. Thomas’s assertions to be almost patently false and ridiculous.
Contrast that with the below linked article posted at Michael J. Totten’s “Middle East Journal.”
I am waiting to hear the results of the internal “investigation.” I am quite sure the editor will pronounce that his in depth investigation has validated the story. He won’t provide any back up to substantiate his validation.
This is just another Seymour Hersch style hit piece based up anonymous, single sourced information that is almost always a complete fabrication. It gets by editors who are predisposed to believe it.
Of course, everyone knows that the American troops are just bunch of blood thirsty scum looking for a way to vent their hatred toward mankind. Like Rathergate, even if the facts are fabricated, the story is surely still true, so why bother to even question it?
Actually no, I don’t consider the story in “The Nation” to be reporting at all. If you look at the names of the Soldiers interviewed you will notice that they are extremely vocal activists in anti-war movements. While they are indeed veterans of the Iraq war, they are not identified as being anti-war activists in any of the first couple of pages, which is where this info should be. This is the first sentence from the story:
“Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians.”
By not stating that their “fifty combat veterans” are actually anti-war activists, “The Nation” implies that they interviewed a random sample of veterans and came up with all these shocking stories of misconduct and abuse. For “The Nation” to pull all or most of their interviewees from the subset of veterans who oppose the war disqualifies this as “journalism.” That’s not reporting, that’s advocacy of a point of view.
The group most of these guys belong to is Iraq Veterans Against the War. They have every right to tell their stories and oppose the war, no problem. Keep in mind that there are more than half-a-million veterans of the Iraq war. The membership of IVAW is in the hundreds, last info I saw. You can’t get numbers from their website, last I looked.
Steve
Do you dismiss the article and it’s point of view because it has one?
Good response: You are right about the subset they interviewed: Vets against the war. This is advocacy, and not a wide open story … Of course these anti war groups are not given a lot of attention by the supposidly rabidly “anti-war liberal mainstream media.” They tend to focus on the more obnoxious anti-war types … But anyway.
In many ways, all journalism is advocacy with a point of view. At least that’s historically what journalism has been. The whole idea of “objectivity” and having to give equal weight to “telling both sides” (or even 10 sides?) is very recent and hard to define. … The blog mentioned is just one guy’s point of view. But its also journalism, in my opinion. Its telling what’s going on, where he is and what he has encountered. It’s a good source: First person journalism, but journalism still the same.
Well the question was: is this war reporting? My answer is that “The Nation” article is not. Journalism IS supposed to be objective, reporting of facts. You are right that this standard is rarely, if ever, met.
I think the blog comes a lot closer than the article. The guy in the blog embedded with a unit and told us what he observed. As far as we know, he didn’t search around until he found a unit in a situation that he wanted to advocate and ignored other units in situations that didn’t suit his purpose. This looks like what the writer of “The Nation” article did. The blog writer also mentions a couple of times that there are other units in other areas still engaged in heavy fighting and also mentions gunshots. This helps put the situation in perspective.
Unfortuantely most journalism has become advocacy. This is one reason why I threw myself into triathlon, so I could keep myself occupied and not have to deal with the slow death from politics that the U.S. is going through now.
Just because it tells a sinister side people don’t want to hear doesn’t mean its bad reporting. Yes, it cherry picks the bad stuff, and I believe and hope most of the stories are the exception, not the norm … But it is still good reporting. They have tons of sources and back up their claims very well … The “bad stuff” is obviously the basis of the article, just like an article that focuses on some screw up by a politician but ignores all the “good things he did” … On the other hand, our government constantly cherry picks the good news (as it should, we all know that) so in a way articles like this provide a form of “balance.” "A Note on Methodology The Nation interviewed fifty combat veterans, including forty soldiers, eight marines and two sailors, over a period of seven months beginning in July 2006. To find veterans willing to speak on the record about their experiences in Iraq, we sent queries to organizations dedicated to US troops and their families, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the antiwar groups Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War and the prowar group Vets for Freedom … We found veterans through word of mouth, as many of those we interviewed referred us to their military friends.
To verify their military service, when possible we obtained a copy of each interviewee’s DD Form 214, or the Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, and in all cases confirmed their service with the branch of the military in which they were enlisted. Nineteen interviews were conducted in person, while the rest were done over the phone; all were tape-recorded and transcribed; all but five interviewees (most of those currently on active duty) were independently contacted by fact checkers to confirm basic facts about their service in Iraq. "
But look at the story in question. The headlines, subheads and first few paragraphs. This story is not billed as an expose (assume the little accent is there over the last “e”) of a few soldier’s wrongdoing. It’s portrayed as an overview of war experiences of Iraq war veterans and the aftereffects of the war on them. All of them, me included. The “note on methodology” that you quoted makes it look as though they worked very hard to find a wide cross section of veterans with a wide range of experiences and viewpoints.
But it’s a sham. Copy and paste the names of the Soldiers interviewed into google and you will find that nearly all are IVAW members or are active in anti-war movements. Quite the cross section. I pointed out before that 500,000+ men and women have served in theater, and the IVAW has a membership in the hundreds. It doesn’t strike you as strange that with the numbers skewed this way that so many of the interview subjects HAPPEN to be members of anti-war groups? They couldn’t find 2 or 3 people, out of the other 499,xxx Iraq war vets, who aren’t active members of anti-war groups to interview?
If they interviewed 5 anti-war vets and 5 vets who support the mission, (it still wouldn’t be fair, the anti-war crowd would still be way over-represented among servicemembers,) at least it would be closer to journalism.
This piece serves only one purpose. To portray servicemembers as victims or criminals, or as disillusioned about the mission in Iraq. The vast majority of us are none of these. I’m not arguing the right or wrong of the war, simply stating the fact that most of us still think we can, and should, win. That winning would be better for the U.S. than the alternative. And that this article, purporting to represent the opinions of Iraq war vets as a whole, is skewed and can’t be called journalism.
This article is just another hit piece on the US military and its mission.
I knew that is what it was, but thanks for your letting me in on just how they had managed to skew the “reporting” so extremely. The realization that they took all their samples from antiwar activists without disclosing makes the whole presentation just a flagrant lie.
The realization that they took all their samples from antiwar activists without disclosing makes the whole presentation just a flagrant lie.
Uhh, they did disclose that, pretty much. Not in pragraph 1 but on page 1 (of 9):
“To find veterans willing to speak on the record about their experiences in Iraq, we sent queries to organizations dedicated to US troops and their families, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the antiwar groups Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War and the prowar group Vets for Freedom”
It may be a hit piece but unlike some it has teeth … That’s why I don’t totally dismiss stuff like this outright. I can’t take it it as gospel either. Just like I don’t believe or dismiss everything any media outlet (or our government) tells us.
This story is not billed as an expose (assume the little accent is there over the last “e”) of a few soldier’s wrongdoing. It’s portrayed as an overview of war experiences of Iraq war veterans and the aftereffects of the war on them … But it’s a sham. If they interviewed 5 anti-war vets and 5 vets who support the mission, (it still wouldn’t be fair, the anti-war crowd would still be way over-represented among servicemembers,) at least it would be closer to journalism.
I did read that far in the article. The use of the word including didn’t trigger my BS detector. Presumably they would include everyone as a candidate for providing information.
Had they said they used members of antiwar activist organizations to provide essentially all the information for the article, I would have stopped reading right there.
As it was, I had to wade further in to see the one sided testimony to realize it was a hit piece rather than actual informative journalism. I was puzzled how they managed to create a hit piece given what seemed like a description of a reasonable methodology.
Now I know how they did it so I feel better knowing why it is crap rather than simply knowing it is crap but not how they pulled it off.
Can anyone besides Art read beyond the headline?
I like this one because it zooms out to a bigger picture a bit.
I agree that mainstream news media is biased at best.
But we have to remember that when we turn to blogs for real news, it’s up to us to decide
how “fair and balanced” our own news gathering is.
I agree about “deciding for ourselves” in terms of news coverage. Michael J. Totten is an independent journalist who often reports on the goings-on in the Middle East, and he generally provides an unvarnished look at whatever item it is he happens to turn his attention towards, as in the case of his recent participation in a patrol in a part of Baghdad which seems to have enjoyed a respite from the internecine warfare currently taking place in many parts of the city. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned in how we might go about bringing enough stability to Iraq to one day consider pulling our men and women out of there. But that day hasn’t yet arrived, Matt’s protestations to the contrary.
Interestingly, the pseudonymous author of “Shock Troops,” (“Scott Thomas”) seems to have emerged from the shadows from which he posted his dispatch and turns out to be a private (most likely an E-2 or E-3) in the U.S. Army. He also, of course, has his own page on MySpace and freely confesses to leftist tendencies (oh woe forfiend!), which doesn’t in and of itself negate the veracity of his story. I’m more interested in the vetting of that same story that may, or may not have, taken place. So far, there hasn’t been any corroborating evidence to prove what it is that he is saying. Having served under similar circumstances in many parts of that region, I find it difficult to believe that the actions he described could have taken place in the manner in which he says they do. Perhaps he meant to be taken more as a polemicist rather than as a true documentarian. That will be for The New Republic to explain, in the long run.
I’m a firm believer that all true stories about the war should be told - good, bad and ugly. The Iraq Veterans Against the War have as much right to a forum for their experiences as anyone else. And the last thing I want to see is a narrative of the war that glosses over the brutality, chaos, mistakes or criminal acts of anyone involved. We don’t need war protrayed as romantic and therefore desirable.
However, (who didn’t see that coming) so far as I can tell, since returing from my deployment to Iraq in April of 2004, the bad and the ugly are the only stories being told. I read a story from the New York Times today that details six movies, either already out or coming out soon, that directly deal with the Iraq war. All are anti-war or treat the situation negatively.
I understand that the one plane that crashes is news and the 10,000 that land safely are not. But there are stories of exceptional heroism and many more lives are saved each day than lives taken. Where are these stories? Where is the story of the Marsh Arabs, whose culture was being systematically destroyed by Saddam? We restored the ecosystem of the southen marshes in Iraq and gave them their way of life back. I’ve never heard this mentioned outside of military publications. And I saw this happening with my own eyes. Wonder if “The Nation” wants to interview me?
Why hasn’t the movie been made about Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, the first woman to earn a Silver Star medal since WW2? How about a movie about SFC Paul Smith, who won the Medal of Honor? Why can’t servicemen and women be heroes in our popular culture?
If the media wants to do a story about the disillusionment of the military, they should try to get it right. We’ve not been let down by our leaders, we’ve been let down by our culture.
Okay, name three Soldiers famous for their service in Iraq. You may have friends or family you could name, or, since you are involved in a political discussion, you may be better read than the average joe. But I bet most Americans on the street would come up with names like Lynch, England or Watada. A prisoner, a criminal and a coward (I call them like I see them.) Many might say the first two are victims in a way. I would hope that some would come up with Tillman, but many would do so because of the stupid cover up the Army tried, instead of remembering him for the sacrifice he made and the selflessness that he embodied.
There HAS been coverage of heroic acts, successful battles and humanitarian projects, if you look for it. The only mention I could find in the New York Times of the Marsh Arabs through a google search was from 2003. I didn’t see any mention of the U.S. helping them though. There has been vastly overwhelming coverage of every mistake, setback and incident of criminal misconduct. You would think that every Soldier in Iraq is dodging bullets every time they go to the latrine and that we can barely keep the murderers and rapists in check long enough to run a convoy.
All I’m saying is that, 5 years into the war, we as a nation refuse to embrace our heroes. Not guys like me who followed convoys around fixing broken trucks. But Soldiers like the ones I mentioned a couple of posts ago. Not a single movie. Not even a made-for-tv movie.
For a culture that has such a love for fictional heroes, (Harry Potter, John Mclane, etc…) you would think this war would be a screenwriters wet dream. Fresh material. Maybe they could stop with the remakes for a while!