John Hockenberry on NBC/GE's "Anti-slant" slant during early days of Iraq conquest

[BurtWorm]

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19845/?a=f


January/February 2008
"You Don't Understand Our Audience"

What I learned about network television at Dateline NBC.

By John Hockenberry


The most memorable reporting I've encountered on the conflict in Iraq was delivered in the form of confetti exploding out of a cardboard tube. I had just begun working at the MIT Media Lab in March 2006 when Alyssa Wright, a lab student, got me to participate in a project called "Cherry Blossoms." I strapped on a backpack with a pair of vertical tubes sticking out of the top; they were connected to a detonation device linked to a Global Positioning System receiver. A microprocessor in the backpack contained a program that mapped the coördinates of the city of Baghdad onto those for the city of Cambridge; it also held a database of the locations of all the civilian deaths of 2005. If I went into a part of Cambridge that corresponded to a place in Iraq where civilians had died in a bombing, the detonator was triggered.

When the backpack exploded on a clear, crisp afternoon at the Media Lab, handfuls of confetti shot out of the cardboard tubes into the air, then fell slowly to earth. On each streamer of paper was written the name of an Iraqi civilian casualty. I had reported on the war (although not from Baghdad) since 2003 and was aware of persistent controversy over the numbers of Iraqi civilian dead as reported by the U.S. government and by other sources. But it wasn't until the moment of this fake explosion that the scale and horrible suddenness of the slaughter in Baghdad became vivid and tangible to me. Alyssa described her project as an upgrade to traditional journalism. "The upgrade is empathy," she said, with the severe humility that comes when you suspect you are on to something but are still uncertain you aren't being ridiculous in some way.

The falling confetti transported me back three years to the early days of the war in Iraq, when the bombs intended to evoke "shock and awe" were descending on Baghdad. Most of the Western press had evacuated, but a small contingent remained to report on the crumbling Iraqi regime. In the New York offices of NBC News, one of my video stories was being screened. If it made it through the screening, it would be available for broadcast later that evening. Producer Geoff Stephens and I had done a phone interview with a reporter in Baghdad who was experiencing the bombing firsthand. We also had a series of still photos of life in the city. The only communication with Baghdad in those early days was by satellite phone. Still pictures were sent back over the few operating data links.

Our story arranged pictures of people coping with the bombing into a slide show, accompanied by the voice of Melinda Liu, a Newsweek reporter describing, over the phone, the harrowing experience of remaining in Baghdad. The outcome of the invasion was still in doubt. There was fear in the reporter's voice and on the faces of the people in the pictures. The four-minute piece was meant to be the kind of package that would run at the end of an hour of war coverage. Such montages were often used as "enders," to break up the segments of anchors talking live to field reporters at the White House or the Pentagon, or retired generals who were paid to stand on in-studio maps and provide analysis of what was happening. It was also understood that without commercials there would need to be taped pieces on standby in case an anchor needed to use the bathroom. Four minutes was just about right.

At the conclusion of the screening, there were a few suggestions for tightening here and clarification there. Finally, an NBC/GE executive responsible for "standards" shook his head and wondered about the tone in the reporter's voice. "Doesn't it seem like she has a point of view here?" he asked.

There was silence in the screening room. It made me want to twitch, until I spoke up. I was on to something but uncertain I wasn't about to be handed my own head. "Point of view? What exactly do you mean by point of view?" I asked. "That war is bad? Is that the point of view that you are detecting here?"

The story never aired. Maybe it was overtaken by breaking news, or maybe some pundit-general went long, or maybe an anchor was able to control his or her bladder. On the other hand, perhaps it was never aired because it contradicted the story NBC was telling. At NBC that night, war was, in fact, not bad. My remark actually seemed to have made the point for the "standards" person. Empathy for the civilians did not fit into the narrative of shock and awe. The lesson stayed with me, exploding in memory along with the confetti of Alyssa Wright's "Cherry Blossoms." Alyssa was right. Empathy was the upgrade. But in the early days of the war, NBC wasn't looking for any upgrades.

...

[Writer]

1. I think this says more about the nature of the news audience than NBC. n/t

[BurtWorm]

2. I totally disagree.

That's always the corporate media's line. "It's not us. We're just giving the rubes what they want."

[Writer]

3. I certainly didn't expect you to agree.

Because it's not a perspective that places us in the best light possible.

But indeed it WAS what we wanted to hear then, unfortunately. Bush the Idiot had 90% approval ratings back then, and jingoism was at its height.

[BurtWorm]

4. If you recall right before the war, the public was mostly opposed to it.

By slim majorities, but by clear majorities nevertheless (certainly larger than any majority Bush boy himself ever had). Only after the bombs started dropping and the media kept the "support the mission" drumbeat going did "approval" go up. This has never been a genuinely popular war. This is not Americans' war. This has always been the Bushists' bastard child.

[Writer]

6. Actually, no, I do believe the public supported the idea of any war at that time.

At the very least, it wasn't exactly a difficult sell for the Bush Administration.

[BurtWorm]

9. To refresh your memory: Popular opinion on invasion of Iraq, from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq


February 2001

Seven months prior to the September 11 attacks a Gallup poll showed that 52% would favor an invasion of Iraq while 42% would oppose it. <3>

October 2002

Several prominent evangelical leaders of the Christian right sent an open letter (referred to as the Land Letter) to President Bush outlining a "just war" rationale for an invasion, citing Saddam Hussein's (alleged, and in this case, spurious) possession of nuclear and biochemical weapons, and advocating immediate military action. <4>

January 2003


An early January 2003 poll showed rapidly decreasing support for an invasion, although there was still more public support than there was prior to the Gulf War a decade ago. Much of this appeared to be for the same reason that France and Germany opposed the war; namely the US public believing that the weapons inspectors should be given the time they need to complete their investigations. US officials downplayed this shift in public opinion, claiming that it was not a true reflection of the public mood.

A poll conducted at the time by The New York Times and CBS News released showed even less support for the US-led war. Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. Interestingly, this same poll showed that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but did not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicated a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action. However, about 60% of those polled also supported, if necessary, the use of military action to remove Saddam from power which closely mirrored recent polls taken by Time Magazine, CNN, FOX News, USA Today, CBS News and other news organizations. Current polls also showed that most Americans did not think that Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. <5>

Some polls showed that Bush's 2003 State of the Union increased US support for the invasion, but other polls showed that it had little effect. Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65% (58% according to CNN/USA Today, 57% according to the LA Times, and 67% according to Fox). However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that. <1>

A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first).

Some polls also showed that the majority of Americans believed that President Bush had made his case against Iraq. The Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made, which was a jump from 47% just prior the speech. However, many more Republicans than Democrats watched the speech, so this may not be an accurate reflection of the overall opinion of the American public. An ABC news poll found little difference in the percentage of Americans who felt that Bush has made his case for war after he had made his speech, with the percentage remaining at about 40%. <1>

February 2003

Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, said the bumps in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings jumped 7 points, and support for the invasion jumped 4 points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April of 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month. <6> A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.

Anti-war demonstrations took place in more than 500 US cities, among them Cambridge (Massachusetts), Berkeley, New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Hollywood, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Milwaukee, Portland, Athens (Ohio), Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Oakland, Madison, Eugene, Detroit, and East Lansing. In several cases demonstrators were arrested. The protests reached their peak just before the Iraq War broke out.

March 2003

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. <7>

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. <1>

April 2003

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.<8>

August 2004

An August 2004 poll showed that two-thirds (67%) of the American public believe the U.S. went to war based on incorrect assumptions.<1> The morale of the US troops has been subject to variations. Important issues are the vulnerability of the Humvee vehicles, and the great number of wounded and maimed soldiers <9> <10>

November 2004

The US presidential election of November 2004 (United States presidential election, 2004) saw George Bush reelected with a narrow majority of the voters and has been the only general, if somewhat circumspect, test of the US popular support of the war. The election campaign was widely seen as a referendum on Bush's job performance to during his first four years, and in particular on the validity of the Iraq War and War on Terrorism, as such the election can be seen as an indication that a slim majority of Americans supported the war.

[burythehatchet]

8. You're correct. Public opinion shifted to "support the troops"

McM$M was a eager participant in catapulting the propaganda because it meant high ratings for a while.

[Garbo 2004]

5. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[burythehatchet]

7. Artists use lies to tell the truth

Politicians use lies to hide the truth

Sad story.