Eric Umansky is a very good American journalist. Eric Umansky praises Nir Rosen's reporting from Fallujah:
Eric Umansky: Peeling Back the Picture in Fallujah: Rosen's piece seems to get far more details on the make-up of the guerrillas than anything else I've seen--including say, the NYT magazine's recent, lengthy story. The reporter for that piece doesn't speak Arabic and as an obviously western guy had very limited access. Rosen by contrast speaks the language and was able to hide his American identity. (He convinced the insurgents that he was Bosnian.)
That's not to bludgeon the Times. It's partially about my own doubts. I've done the same thing: Gone places where I don't speak the language, don't have in-depth knowledge of the culture, and then written long, seemingly knowing pieces. I think that story I did accurately portrays the situation I covered. But am I 100 percent sure? No. There's always a tension between trying to convey as much information as possible, molding it into some kind of understandable narrative, and just writing just what you know. And it's worth remembering that when you're in a strange place where you don't speak the language, what you know probably isn't all that much.
The New York Times sends somebody to cover Fallujah who (a) doesn't speak Arabic and (b) is (rightly) too scared to wander around and talk to people. And Umansky thinks is OK? (Although he does think Rosen is much much better.) Apparently Umansky thinks it is OK: he doesn't want to "bludgeon the Times". Why not? After all, he says that "it's worth remembering that when you're in a strange place where you don't speak the language, what you know probably isn't all that much."
Posted by DeLong at July 1, 2004 11:14 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postGeez, another bludgeoning? All right, let's get on with it.
Posted by: chabo on July 1, 2004 11:28 AMTo be fair, I remember the NYT Magazine piece. It was really quite good. The reporter visited Fallujah a number of times over a series of months before and during the uprising. He didn't speak arabic, but he did have a translator and several of his sources -- including a man who was an active part of the resistance -- spoke English.
Posted by: zwichenzug on July 1, 2004 11:58 AMIn the Peace Corps, I had three months of extensive language training, living with a family that did not speak english. I read the paper, talked to everybody I could, and it was still a year until I had a decent grasp of the politics and motivations of the major groups in the country. You just can't land somewhere and pick up what's going on not knowing the language and the nuances of the place. And I was in a country where I could go anywhere and talk to anybody without fear.
If you are limited to English, you are mostly likely only going to get the upper-class, western-educated point of view.
Posted by: LADem on July 1, 2004 12:39 PMPlease. Umansky begs us not to bludgeon The Times for sending a non-native speaking reporter and Brad jumps on Umansky like this was the first/last/only wiener on the BBQ.
Let's step back for a moment. First salvo: "Eric Umansky is a very good American journalist."[ The name of the item on the BBQ is 'Umansky' -tasty,no?]
Second salvo: "Apparently Umansky thinks it is OK: he doesn't want to "bludgeon the Times". [ The item is 'ready' any takers?]
Does the bludgeoning of the Times take precedence over the bludgeoning of Umansky?
Does the Times really need this blugeoning this badly?
Groan. Umansky 2 pts. BDL none.
There really is an 8800-lb. gorilla in the media. Everyone there is ALWAYS trying to figure out what is permissible to say. Kristof, Umansky, whoever. Just follow Somerby and you'll have as much documentation as you want (and Somerby has a searchable database if you're skeptical).
Somerby does not speculate much about the causes, but it's pretty clear that the 800-lb. gorilla is upper management and the owners. The bias is center-right-to-right with exceptions for a few social issues.
It's been true at least since 1980, when the "secret" war in Central Amserica (which was in no way secret or covert) was deliberately and egregiously misreported.
A number of excellent reporters have ended their big-daily-media careers just by reporting honestly.
The enforcers of neutrality and objectivity have not figured out what to do when the facts are not neutral. And the right wing has figured out that if you copmplain all the time about everything, the refs will give you the calls.
"Both sides are mad at us, so we must be doing something right!" So cute and hip-sounding, and such bullshit.
Posted by: zizka / John Emerson on July 1, 2004 01:33 PMNir Rosen knew Arabic and risked his life. You can't blame the New York Times for someone elses extraordinary efforts.
Posted by: joe o on July 1, 2004 01:45 PM"The New York Times sends somebody to cover Fallujah who (a) doesn't speak Arabic and (b) is (rightly) too scared to wander around and talk to people..."
While we're bashing the Times, keep in mind that it also sends people to cover the NYC public schools who don't speak the language of what they are covering and don't walk around inside them.
It hasn't *lowered* its standard to cover Iraq.
I think it's great how a whole new class of people are finally realizing how generally inept (with only a small minority of valuable exceptions) the press is at covering important subjects.
Just remember that it's equally inept in reporting on *all* important subjects, not just this one, and for the same systemic reasons.
Also remember that there's no particular reason for thinking that it's not being just as inept on those occasions when you happen to like its coverage. ;-)
I remember hosting journalists and academics in my country during a recent war. I would eventually get a hold of some of the work that resulted from their visits and would often think to myself, "is this the same guy I ferried around the countryside for three days? It surely can't be, since he wouldn't have gotten it so wrong."
Well, he was right about Rosen's article. It was very interesting and painted a fuller picture than almost any article I've read on Fallujah. I'm curious to learn how the locals deal with the non-Iraqi mujahadeen who now refuse to leave. Too bad we probably won't have someone of Rosen's skill to write about it.
Posted by: Abigail on July 1, 2004 06:10 PMThe Washington Post sends its star reporter on the Microsoft trial/dot.com beat to be its Baghdad bureau chief, and a Marine reports on his reporting...
~~~
Iraq veterans often say they're confused by U.S. news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report....
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. Chandrasekaran... who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies — now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape.
He finds the Bush administration guilty. Such a surprise. Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the U.S. operation a failure.... This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes.
Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Kutlast April, talked to a few of our officers and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed [writing]: "'We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam's regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,' Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the building's spacious conference room. 'We cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this office'... Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhil's new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding, ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish.... When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were ... marginal in every sense of the word.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the province's water, electricity, medical care and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city.
Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them. Since he didn't, he couldn't see how the Iraqis ... reacteded to us.
People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys. None of those encouraging things made it into the article...
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. "Untouchable" Fadhil asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed.... The Post didn't cover any of that, either.
Don't take my word for it that the Post's reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news.
In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation."
Translation: We are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting....
[But]Chandrasekeran's meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in The Washington Post...
Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24231.htm
Chandrasekaran's story:
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/abroad/iraq/A25508-2003Apr23.html
Two different worlds, eh?
JG -thankyou for that lengthy post (and your service).
So what are we (of enquiring minds) supposed to do? There is only so much 'suspension of belief' the ordinary guy can take, no?
Are you suggesting that a role for some neutral player (why do I hesitate to say 'UN'?) might be press/media coverage?
Both sides would shoot the referee I guess.
Non sum qualis eram - I am not what / of what sort I was (I'm not what I used to be.)
In medio tutissimus ibis - In the middle of things you will go most safe. (Ovid)