WP ombudsman blasts combat death coverage, Milbank's Conyers coverage

Casualties and Coverage in the Balance
By Michael Getler
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page B06

....Almost every week, I get one, two or three calls or e-mails like this one from people upset about the way military losses are reported and presented. That's not much, but it has formed a steady hum in the background the past year or so, and I find myself in sympathy with these readers.

I think their point is important because it goes to the question of whether the reality of the war in Iraq has become sanitized in the newspapers; there are almost no pictures of dead or wounded Americans, and very few stories about U.S. casualties make the front page or get a main headline.

The Post, in particular, has done a superior job in reporting on the war from Iraq. Similarly, the paper does several other things that call attention to the war's toll....Yet, between April 1 and June 23, as I write this, 193 U.S. service members died in Iraq, and there wasn't a single, major front-page headline that captured this as it was unfolding or summed things up at any point....Here are some examples of what is more typical. On June 11 there was a reference -- inside the box at the bottom of the front page that tells readers some of what's inside -- to a story about five Marines being killed. But even that small "key" headline said, "Iraq Violence Flares Near Syrian Border," and the headline on the story inside made no reference to the Marines. On May 25, nine U.S. troops were reported killed. The front-page story was headlined, "Insurgent Chief Wounded, Aide Says." Underneath that, in the smaller, lighter-faced type used for subheads, it said "Zarqawi Reportedly Shot; 9 U.S. Troops Die in Attacks." There have been other references in front-page stories to soldiers or Marines being killed, but rarely in a headline of any kind and almost always as part of a story that gives the headline to other aspects of the war.

The combat deaths usually unfold one or two at a time, and that's not likely to produce individual stories. But when four or five, or nine, are killed in one day, that seems different. Compared with the casualties of World War II, Korea or Vietnam, the numbers are still not high, and the public understands that people get killed in wars. Nevertheless, this is an unusual and controversial war, and it could be a long one. So news organizations need to find ways so that even a slow buildup of casualties does not escape the kind of occasional Page One attention -- in headlines, words and pictures -- that readers deserve and won't miss.

There was a torrent of critical e-mails and calls about a Washington Sketch column on June 17 by Post columnist Dana Milbank that appeared in the news section and was about the unofficial hearing on Iraq held by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other opponents of the war the day before. I thought it was a serious mistake for editors to assign a columnist to cover a news event. There are large numbers of people who oppose the war and care about what Conyers was trying to accomplish, and a reporter should have covered the event as news. If a columnist wants to write a separate piece with his take on it, that's fine. But it is not enough by itself....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062500862.html

Not that the ombudsman's opinion means anything will change at the paper.

Is he always that reasonable? Does the Post take his opinion to heart or do they use him to deflect more sustained critics?

in the past.

by the WP's insulting Conyers coverage, and the continuing issue of press coverage of combat deaths.

I wonder how big a "torrent" is?

It's a damning statement that he makes:

I thought it was a serious mistake for editors to assign a columnist to cover a news event.

It really sums up a fundamental problem in the Post's coverage of opposition to the war and other Bush administration programs and policies. Disagreement is seen as "partisan politics," not as a legitimate source of news, facts that deserve objective coverage. The implication is clear: the editors see only Bush Administration policies as "news" - anyone who disagrees must be a political partisan and thus worthy of only a low level of interest or coverage in an opnion piece.

This is a damnable attitude. We need to keep those emails and faxes coming. They may not care about real news reporting, but they do care about subscriptions and fury from readers.

and not news? Rove and the Republicans have, very successfully. Mehlman's and Scottie's statements in response to Democratic opposition is almost always that it's politics.

You make an excellent point here, which I don't think I had thought of. Opposition is covered as political posturing; "news" is made only by the Bush cabal.

is NOT only political posturing. That attitude presupposes that the Bush administration is a dictatorship in which opposition is meaningless. Do they really want to admit that?

Shall we ask them?
Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail atombudsman@washpost.com.

about Milbank's insulting article. Remember - that article not only belittled and distorted what happened in Conyrers' hearing, it also directly insulted Conyers himself. For example, saying that attendees called Rep. Conyers "Mr. Chairman" and that he "seemed to like hearing it." (I'm quoting from memory here, may be a bit off, but the insulting language was unambiguous.) In addiiton to the "important" points that Conyers rebutted, those on distortion and omission, he also explains that calling him "Mr Chairman" is correct, leaving politely unsaid the clear implication that Milbank is an ignorant fool.

That Conyers letter to the WaPo was one powerful blast. AND THIS OMBUSDSMAN LETTER DDOES NOT MENTION IT AT ALL. Nor does it admit that Milbank's article was not only wrong, it was outrageously insulting.

Let's tell him about it, shall we?
Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail atombudsman@washpost.com.

Congressman. I will not ever buy their paper again. That Dana Milbank article was an attack on not only Conyers, but on the families of soldiers who died, who were present that day and on half a million Americans who care enough about their country to ask the questions the press has refused to ask. They also insulted 123 other members of Congress.

The right thing to do would have been to publish Rep. Conyers' rebuttal to Dana Milbank's incredibly, childish article. If he's one of the best they've got, we are in deep trouble.

I think they are losing readership. Probably lost a lot more since that disaster they brought on themselves.


Remember when Dana Milbank said the DSM was 'old news'? Well, not to us, but apparently to the press. Michael Milbank said he tried to get the US press interested for 8 months, but they would not publish them!! Shame on them. Maybe this guy read Michael Milbank's article in the Sunday Times today. He is a real reporter.


After reporting these secret memos, which revealed the dubious manoeuvrings of government, I expected the US press to react. Surely there would be a storm of anger over the way in which the American public had been deceived into going to war? But still there was no interest. Then slowly something astonishing happened. People power took over.

The Sunday Times website was inundated with ordinary US citizens wanting to read the minutes of the July meeting. Bloggers set to work passing the word. Six ordinary, patriotic citizens with no political axe to grind were so outraged to discover the truth about the path to war that they set up their own website, naming it after the minutes, which had become known as the Downing Street memo.

"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669292_2,00.html"

So, it WAS old news to the media!!

"unofficial hearing on Iraq held by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other opponents of the war "

He made sure to point out that it was unofficial and repeated the party line of the anti-war link of the people particapating...