Anyone who believes unfair and biased press on Iraq is a recent phenomenon has a short memory.
In 2003, following the fastest advance in the history of warfare, the media began to wring their collective hands, as one microphone holder after the next cautioned of Marines and soldiers outrunning their support in the charge to Baghdad.
Reporters, editors and producers really love to play follow the sound byte.
In April 2003, the buzzwords "stretched thin" and "unprotected" got a lot more attention than "Iraqis are surrendering by the thousands." As the troops cut into uncharted territory, the media played up the strength of Saddam's "dedicated" Republican Guard, while openly discussing the weaknesses of American troops.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
Little mention was made of the fact that American aircraft dominating the skies could re-supply the troops, while satellite imagery gave real-time information about enemy movement. The US had an enormous advantage over the Iraqi military, but to be fair, Iraqi intelligence did not need high-tech surveillance equipment … they had CNN.
Friend or foe?
In 2003, critics expected millions of "refugees," warned of a humanitarian crisis and demanded the American military fight a kinder and gentler war. The U.N. set up camps in neighboring Jordan and estimates predicted that as many as 2 million Iraqis would flee the country. The media widely predicted a humanitarian disaster. When the mass exodus did not materialize, the media forgot the dire predictions and quickly began to run stories on the possible inhumane treatment of POWs. All too often the reporters became critics instead of observers, activists rather than journalists.
Sometimes the media can't decide which cause they want to cheer for, but the rule of thumb in many newsrooms is: When in doubt, blame the military.
During the GI Jane '90s, there was a hot debate over the role of women in combat. Opponents of gender-neutral combat forces were called sexist and chauvinistic. When the Iraqi military held an American female soldier/single mother as a prisoner of war and broadcasted the images to the world, a cable reporter wondered aloud, "How desperate is the military, if a single mother is being sent to war?" So much for the feminist view on equal access to combat and shared burdens.
Print media have been no better. The Newsweek article on the flushing of the Quran caused tension in Iraq and riots in Afghanistan – once they discovered what a toilet is used for.
The press should be critical, but the United States press has done more than criticize; they've antagonized and jeopardized.
None of this is particularly new. During the American Civil War, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman said, "I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from hell before breakfast."
Normally, the PC press is sensitive not to stereotype, but the intense coverage of Abu Ghraib stereotyped every soldier as a torturer, while the "Haditha Massacre" turned every Marine into a cold-blooded killer.
It is the duty of the press to evaluate, question and confirm information, yet who watches the watchmen?
Province or 'Triangle' – What's in a word?
"Deadliest place on earth," according to all the papers. When American Marines and soldiers were killed in the region just north of Baghdad, the New York Times popularized the area as the "Sunni Triangle." This was Saddam's stronghold, his fiefdom of loyalists. The press wrote thousands of stories on the dangers of the infamous "Sunni Triangle," but when hostilities died down, the danger zone became the bucolic province of Anbar, and the triangle literally disappeared without a trace.
Never content with the status of the conflict, NBC decided unilaterally to declare its own war – a civil war. There can be no doubt there was violence in places like Baghdad, where gangs, criminals and a foreign force, al-Qaida in Iraq (which the New York Times constantly referred to as al-Qaida in Mesopotamia) conspired to create a lot of trouble. Two years after declaring their own civil war in Iraq, when is NBC going to update the viewing audience about the status of that war?
Discouraged by the not guilty verdicts of the Marines at Haditha, Time magazine has turned to a feature article on the Army's use of anti-depressants and sleeping pills during deployments. In the New York Times, military suicide rates were the hot topic of discussion. Unfortunately, many articles forgot to mention that suicides and the use of anti-depressant and sleeping pills is far more prevalent in the civilian population and probably higher among journalists.
In Iraq, much has changed but you may not learn that from your favorite anchorwoman. Five years after going into Iraq, the biggest loser so far has been al-Qaida, a group the average Iraqi despises with a passion most Americans would not comprehend, but the closest runner up for defeat has been the media's credibility as an impartial source of information.
Coverage of the "war" has dwindled, yet it's fair to ask who has inflicted more damage on the military, the terrorists or the press?
A free press helps to inform the American public and is crucial in decision-making, but if the media are the eyes, ears and voice of our democracy, we are currently deaf, dumb and blind.
Related special offer:
"Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution"
Matt Sanchez is a war correspondent who has embedded with the American, Iraqi and Afghan military. He resides in New York City and is a frequent political commentator in both American and French media. His work has appeared in the New York Post, National Review and Human Events. Visit Sanchez's website.