AP Coverage of Iraq

[csberry]

Why do most news articles in Iraq focus on the body count? Because it's easy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/15apee.html?ei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Comments

[csberry.livejournal.com]

For me the problem isn't that AP writes death count stories. It is news and should be reported. But there is more going on in Iraq than IED, insurgents, and deaths. I usually have to go to BBC, CSM, or other news sources that have a strong international profile to find stories about Iraq stories like the new constitution, ethnic concerns of the Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds, marketplace conditions for average Iraqis, and the types of support being offered to Iraq by its neighbors.

While in talk radio, we would often spend several hours during a week on a single topic (Clinton impeachment, OJ, whatever) but each day we came up with different angles so we repeated ourselves as little as possible. If every time I hear/read a story about Iraq and it only focuses on one plotline, you get a singular vision on what is happening and aren't becoming truly informed about the situation.

MY complaint isn't about a left-wing bias, it's about lazy reporting by the AP - the primary source of news for most newspapers/TV/radio. Their own unwillingness to do the job of a warzone reporter hampers the information that Americans get. I'm sorry, but you're not supposed to get a job reporting in Iraq and then stay holed up in the Palestine Hotel. Why can the BBC and others have people out in the field but it's somehow too dangerous for the AP reporters? If you aren't willing to do it, then you shouldn't be there. A shitload of journalists were willing to risk their lives being embedded in the US military during the initial combat. That was more dangerous than the current situation...it's just not as sexy, I guess.