Behind the News

The News Analysis That Wasn’t

NYT’s Iraq story a case study in caution

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

We seem to be picking on The New York Times this week, but if you want an example of the type of story that drives media critics nuts, look no further that this morning’s front-page piece by Mark Mazzetti, headlined, “Iraq Snapshots Give 2 Views.”

What about it offends the critics’ delicate sensibilities? It’s right there in the headline: the billing that there are basically two views on the war, which carries the implicit promise that Mazzetti is going to split the difference between pro-war and anti-war. He delivers on this promise fully, with a bloodless bit of he said-she said journalism masked as “News Analysis.”

That tag notwithstanding, there is precious little analysis in this piece. Mazzetti doesn’t do much more than report two sides of the debate. In the fourth paragraph, he sums up the entire piece, writing that, “With a promised progress report from the top American commander in Iraq now just six weeks away, partisans on both sides of the debate in Washington are searching desperately for evidence to bolster their judgments about the success or failure of the strategy that the Bush administration calls a ‘surge.’”

And the next two paragraphs don’t give us much red meat, either:

The war’s staunchest supporters have seized on the reduced death toll in July for American troops as a sign that an influx of troops is dampening sectarian violence in the country.

Yet even before the car bombings on Wednesday, opponents of the war were citing reports that the Iraqi civilian deaths were on the rise—a fact they say belies any notion that the White House strategy is having its intended effect of protecting the Iraqi population.

That’s pretty much all you’re going to get here, since the remainder of the piece essentially just goes back and forth between the two camps. The points Mazzetti raises are certainly valid, and do represent some of the major claims in the Iraq debate; but that debate is a rich brew of gripes, stats, historical analogies, projects completed and abandoned, mistakes, successes, innovation, and political maneuvering. Obviously, Mazetti’s piece wasn’t intended to capture all this (several books have barely captured all of it) but it also doesn’t make any headway in analyzing the situation, or even giving us anything new to chew over, either. A more apt tag would have been “News Summary.” It’s frustrating, because we need more from our best newspapers.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

padikiller

Thu 2 Aug 2007 08:36 PM

Paul McLeary Decries Balanced Coverage of The War

"What about it offends the critics' delicate sensibilities? It's right there in the headline: the billing that there are basically two views on the war, which carries the implicit promise that Mazzetti is going to split the difference between pro-war and anti-war."

padikiller wonders

How DARE a NYT reporter "split the difference" by posting BOTH sides of a controverted issue?!...

This guy must be one of that "criminally inept" Chimpy Bushitler's Rovian henchmen!...

For every time this guy mentions one of the obvious failures of Bush's
"Blood for Oil"/ Halliburton-driven genocide in Iraq, he also mentions other irrelevancies that make it look like the military is (GASP!) actually SUCCEEDING in Iraq!...

We can't have this kind of reporting in McLearyland!....

It would be, according to Democratic House Majority Whip, "problematic" for Dems if the military posts any extended success in Iraq...

paddikiller

Fri 3 Aug 2007 05:45 PM

padikiller wanders

"How DARE a NYT reporter "split the difference" by posting BOTH sides of a controverted issue?!..."

Rantings from padiville once again miss the point

The problem with the NYT post, as McCleary clearly states, is that Mazzetti parrots information from either end of the debate. It would have been nice to hear a hawks response to the rise in civilian casualties, or a dove's comment on the downturn in soldiers' deaths.

Mazzetti's piece doesn't offer substantive new information. It would have better been titled "Progress in Iraq? It depends on Who You Ask"

padikiller

Mon 6 Aug 2007 10:26 PM

Wonder who brought about this change in CJR's commenting policy?....

"CJR reserves the right to edit or delete your comment posting if you, or anyone using your Typekey account, violates one of these rules:

...Comments that contain excessive punctuation or capitalization designed solely to pump up the volume of a post."

padikiller promises

I'm sorry that my use of improperly formatted digitally pixlated fonts has offended the CJR Free Speech gods. I will alter my digital pixelation and my deficient puncutation practices to conform to CJR-accepted practices.

What atonement is necessary?

HUH?....

padikiller

Mon 6 Aug 2007 10:30 PM

It would appear that I have a stalker/admirer.

Doesn't the use of multiple TypeKey accounts (with identical Hawaii IP addresses) result in permanent banishment from commenting here in McLearyland?

HUH?...