If you were somewhat confused after reading the front-page piece in The New York Times this morning, “‘Free Iraq’ Is Within Reach, Bush Declares,” you weren’t alone.
The piece, by Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and Mark Mazzetti was all over the map, moving from the president’s historically-suspect speech in Kansas City yesterday, to a U.S. intelligence report about Iraq’s embattled Maliki government, to criticisms of Maliki by Democratic members of Congress, to a pro-war television ad campaign being launched by group of conservatives, then back to the speech, then to Democrat John Kerry’s criticism of the president’s speech, before wrapping up by returning to the intelligence report.
It was quite a ride, and in the end, I’m not sure what the reporters were trying to say, other than provide a scattershot overview of the battles in Washington about Iraq. In touching so many bases, the article left much out, including failing to follow up on the following statement: “In a passage that set off a bitter debate even before the speech’s end, Mr. Bush suggested a quick pullout from Iraq could bring the kind of carnage that drenched Southeast Asia three decades ago.” We’re then given the passage in question, but no hint as to who is involved in this “bitter debate,” or what the debate entails.
In trying to do too much, the Times article hardly does anything at all. We would have all been better served if instead of running a single fourteen hundred-word word piece, the paper broke it up into, say, three seven-hundred word articles, each dealing more thoroughly with the important issues the big piece touched on.
If you think space might be a problem, take a quick glance at the paper’s A section this morning, where you will find a few items that could have been given the boot. Stories like “Many Found Sexually Active Into the 70s” and, oh, “Hikers’ Guidebook Is Reinvented Online.” Throw in “Godfather of Soul; Father Many Times Over” and there would be plenty of room for the additional Iraq stories. There’s nothing inherently wrong with these stories I am suggesting be sacrificed, but you may recall that we are at war. It’s a matter of priorities.
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.