Customer Reviews

Reporting Iraq: An Oral History of the War by the Journalists who Covered It

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This will give anyone who wonders about how the news (particularly the news of a controversial war) is transmitted to them via newspaper, television or radio. The interviewers have spoken to some of the best of the reporters who covered the invasion of Iraq at the side of the troops (Peter Maas wrote one of the most thoughtful and chilling reports on what it's like to be combat for the NY Times magazine that I have ever read, and is included in this) as well as those who were in Baghdad.

Most importantly, this shows how with each week and month that passed, the challenges of reporting what was happening within Iraq grew. The story became more complex and the dangers of trying to obtain accurate first hand information became more acute. At the same time, the frustration within the United States has only grown -- hunting for certainties that are thin on the ground, it has become more common to hear politicians and others lash out against "the media" for failing to show the "real" truth of life in Iraq.

Anyone who takes the time to even skim through this oral history will quickly realize that there may be no single truth, much less one that is easily understood by an American public looking for simple narratives. Moreover, readers will marvel that many of the journalists who have traveled to Baghdad over and over again are willing to repeatedly put their lives in jeopardy to try and explain what is happening there.

For anyone interested in delving more deeply, I'd suggest two quasi-memoirs. Naked in Baghdad: The Iraq War and the Aftermath as Seen by NPR's Correspondent Anne Garrels and Waiting for an Ordinary Day: The Unraveling of Life in Iraq are both tales of trying to report what is happening in Iraq.

This book is remarkable for its previously unreported insights and candor. I suppose the participating journalists have nothing to lose now when they talk about the challenges of reporting the war in Iraq. Still, they illuminate how clumsy the efforts were to control what they reported by limiting access or intimidation. It didn't take long for reporters to recognize the gap between ground truth and what was being pitched from the lecturn. This left a credibility gap that should have been forseen, reducing support for the war, whatever the merits. One story still unwritten is the role of Dan Senor when he headed the strategic communications team from the Green Zone. Did he take orders from others in Washington, or did he create policy on his own? Reporters told me they often didn't trust him, but they had no choice but report his observations. Second sourcing was often impossible. We all know there was little Phase IV planning, but the failure to plan for a credible, effective communications organization ranks high among the unforgivable ommissions. The military spokesmen were more credible than Bremer's folks, but military PAOs were not totally independent. It got to the point where Gen Sanchez and Amb Bremer wouldn't brief the media as a team, or so I was told. High marks to Mike Hoyt and John Palattella for assembling this imporessive undertaking.