 |
| Mark R. Williams/The Dartmouth Staff |
| Speech professor Jim Kuypers |
Posted on 10/22/2003 4:43:10 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The light in which the U.S. media portrayed the war in Iraq varied consistently with the location of the reporter throughout the war, speech professor Jim Kuypers said yesterday.
Kuypers' emphasis was on the discrepancy between reports from reporters embedded in combat in Baghdad and reporters covering the war from within the United States. He cited differences in reports of Iraqi resistance, civilian reception of allied troops, conditions of combat and international support for the war.
Troops embedded in Iraq had tendencies to report more optimistic conditions than reporters in the U.S., Kuypers said. Their reports cited the weakness of Iraqi resistance, frequent Iraqi deserters and the welcome U.S. troops received from civilians.
Non-embedded reporters highlighted the ferocity of Iraqi irregulars, the vulnerability of Allied supply lines and civilian mistrust of American intentions.
Kuypers worked on the University of Cairo at Egypt's study "Global Media Goes to War." His contributions to the study consisted of looking at differences between reporters embedded in combat units and those not.
"My past research has led me to believe that bias, political and otherwise, influences news coverage," Kuypers said.
His study examined reporters working for the New York Times and the Washington Post who covered the war in Iraq from overseas or domestically, and included coverage before, during, and after the war.
Kuypers' study examined 66 stories covering U.S. participation in Iraq; 26 of the stories were from imbedded reporters, and 40 were from non-imbedded.
All stories came from the New York Times or the Washington Post, and were chosen for their international appeal as well as their journalistic records. The stories were compared based on date of publication.
Kuypers attributed these discrepancies to differences in conditions, citing the direct experience gained by reporters under fire, and their ability to see firsthand the strength of allied forces. Reporters not embedded were often subjects of their environment, basing their reports on domestic fears of potential resistance and counter attacks and the rhetoric of Iraqi officials.
"I feel it likely that non-embedded [reporters] were less able to separate preconceptions," Kuypers said.
Kuypers also cited the difference in reporting during the war versus the coverage of the war after the imbedded reporters returned. Coverage after the reporters' return tended to focus on more negative aspects, Kuypers said, ignoring minimal U.S. casualties, the availability of healthcare to Iraqis and the eagerness of many countries to offer and provide military assistance.
"The press inadvertently plays an agenda-setting role. If we move beyond studies ... we do find that the news media tries to tell us what to think about," Kuypers said. "Facts take on their meaning by being embedded in a frame."
|
| Mark R. Williams/The Dartmouth Staff |
| Speech professor Jim Kuypers |
Dirty Dancing 101
Inadvertently?
I thought he used articles from the NYT and the WP for his study. Nothing inadvertent about their bias IMHO.
Let's see. You have reporters in NY, DC, LA (or even Baghdad) hanging out in bars, coffee houses, or newsrooms with their liberal buddies who hate GWB, and taking every press release from Baghdad Bob as the Gospel Truth.
Then you have reporters traveling with the troops, who see the conditions on the ground.
Are we surprised that the latter reporters might be more accurate in their reporting of the war?
Not at all. But we're very surprised to hear an Ivy League Professor state the obvious truth. I mean, how often does that happen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.