As War Dragged On, Coverage Tone Weighed Heavily on Anchors

[babylonsister]

As War Dragged On, Coverage Tone Weighed Heavily on Anchors

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 8, 2007; Page C01

This article is adapted from the book "Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War" by Howard Kurtz, Free Press, New York, ©2007.


Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war.

Now Gibson had friends whose sons were dying in Iraq. His thoughts kept returning to one central question: When you commit kids to war, what are they fighting for? What was the mission in Iraq? How could a family say that the war was worth little Johnny's well-being?

The ABC anchor was obsessed with this point. If you were president, and you decided to go to war, was there a calculus in your mind, that the goal was worth so many American lives? After all, your generals would tell you that X number were likely to die. What was the acceptable trade-off? Gibson's threshold would be one: Was the war worth one life?

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq stretched into its fourth bloody year, the media coverage was turning increasingly negative, and the three evening news anchors constantly agonized over how to deal with the conflict.

Their newscasts had become a nightly tableau of death and destruction, and whether that was an accurate picture of Iraq had become a matter of fierce political debate. Certainly the constant plague of suicide bombs, explosive devices, sniper fire and, occasionally, the massacre of large numbers of civilians played into television's need for dramatic events and arresting visuals. Certainly, by 2006 it was easier for the anchors and correspondents to offer a skeptical vision of the war, now that a majority of the country disapproved of the conflict, than in the heady days after the toppling of Saddam Hussein seemed to strike a blow for democracy in the Middle East. By training their powerful spotlight on the chaos gripping Iraq, the anchors were arguably contributing to the political downfall of a president who had seemed to be riding high when he won his second term.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701471.html?nav=emailpage

[tularetom]

1. "...aruguably contributing to the downfall of a president..."

He says that like it's a bad thing. Actually what they are supposed to do is report the fucking news and if it makes the president look bad, well tough shit.

And what debate could there possibly be about whether the death and destruction was an "accurate picture of Iraq"? Did the networks stage the reports in a Hollywood studio. Were they supposed to pull their punches?

Sounds like Mister Kurtz doesn't want news reporters to report the news except when it is favorable to his butt buddies in the repub party.

[pansypoo53219]

2. FEEEEL

for the poor poor anchors. they have pain too.
yes. we must pray for them.