During the early phase of the Vietnam War, many American columnists went on similar ride-alongs with generals; subsequent events made their rosy accounts seem disconnected from reality. In Ignatius’s case, we don’t have to wait for history.
Woman’s work - The twisted reality of an Italian freelancer in Syria
Sourcing Trayvon Martin ‘photos’ from stormfront - Not a good idea, Business Insider
Elizabeth Warren, the antidote to CNBC - The senator schools the talking heads on bank regulation
Art Laffer + PR blitz = press failure - The media types up the retail lobby’s propaganda
Reuters’s global warming about-face - A survey shows the newswire ran 50 percent fewer stories on climate change after hiring a “skeptic”
In one tweet
Luke Russert is the Golden Boy of DC
And it drives young journalists crazy
It’s official: We never need to worry about the future of journalism again!
The NYT shows us why
Why does Florida produce so much weird news? Experts explain
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
ACEsTooHigh.com – Reporting on the science, education, and policy surrounding childhood trauma
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
Note that Max Boot appears to have been on a similar itinerary, and was similarly detached from the bombing atrocity despite being in Baghdad when it happened.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/141832
#1 Posted by P O'Neill, CJR on Wed 28 Oct 2009 at 10:34 PM
How better to report the 'good news'?
#2 Posted by Strangely Enough, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 12:50 PM
Bravo for this article!
Whatever Ignatius did in Iraq, it was not "journalism." It told us nothing we couldn't learn from other sources, and it misdescribed the situation because it represented that it was telling us about "the situation in Iraq," whereas what it really did was tell us about "what the US military leadership and several well-connected Iraqi acquaintances want to tell us about Iraq."
It is elitism in print.
#3 Posted by Dollared, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 03:00 PM
Apparently having the facts isn't important when conducting a Journalism Review. Having personally been on the flight, which would have taken place whether Mr. Ignatius was with us or not, I can assure you that the bombings happened prior to our arrival in Iraq. Not during the subsequent helo overflight assessment.
With regard to his choice to have lunch in the Green Zone, you have to understand that he didn't have the ability to "enlist" anyone to motorcade him around town or the green zone, because that was not the intent of his trip, nor were the resources available.
To be unfairly critical of Mr. Ignatius' article, which was merely to offer additional perspective, seems to me to be purely self-serving and somewhat vindictive.
Tell us, what comfortable desk location are you "reviewing" from?
#4 Posted by LT McCormick, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 03:21 PM
Lt. McCormick: In his column, David Ignatius writes, "Around the time the bombers struck, I was flying over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter with General David Petraeus." Perhaps he was using "around" loosely, but I hardly think you can charge me with not having the facts. As for his decision to have lunch in the Green Zone, I'm not questioning that--I'm questioning his readiness to offer such sweeping opinions about the state of the Iraqi mood without getting out of the Green Zone. The Washington Post's reporters based in Baghdad routinely travel around the city without a military escort. I know because I was in Baghdad last year, staying with a news bureau outside the Green Zone. I met with Post reporters and heard their accounts of what it was like to move about the city. It wasn't easy, but they did it, with security provided by the bureau. I did that, too, to the best of my ability. That, I think, is a much more reliable way of sampling the mood in the country than embedding with the military--especially if one does that embedding in a helicopter. How much do you think you can see from a Black Hawk, lieutenant? But maybe that wasn't the intent of the trip. If so, I'd like to know what was.
And thanks to P O'Neill for providing that Max Boot clip. It helps drive home the point.
#5 Posted by Michael Massing, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 04:50 PM
LT McCormick, can you tell us if you are responding as a citizen, or are you patrolling the internets looking for inaccuracies in a public affairs function?
We need to understand General Petraeus' resource deployment model. How much "helo overflight assessment" resources, and how much patrolling of the internets to insult professional journalists as "desk jockeys", is required to stabilize the Afghan situation so we can leave and resume devoting our national resources to our national needs?
#6 Posted by Dollared, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 12:02 PM
Thank you for your comment, Dollared. On reflection, I, too, have found it very odd to receive such a comment from a military officer.
#7 Posted by Michael Massing, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 04:10 PM
LT McCormick, are you a public affairs officer, or some other sort of info war operative?
#8 Posted by Jeff Huber, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 03:01 PM
Excellent, disturbing piece. It's upsetting that after all these years of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the view from the helicopter still enjoys prestige in top media.
#9 Posted by Todd Gitlin, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 08:55 AM
And to think back in J-School helicopter journalism used to refer to Africa.
#10 Posted by Mark York, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 10:37 PM
The view from the helicopter expresses the view from "comfort", the truths we are comfortable with, the ones that will not fill us with remorse, anxiety or self doubt. The truths that are disturbing are always stemming from the dirty ground not the blissful sky.The area on the ground that contradicts everything the areal vision glorified.
#11 Posted by sailorgirl, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 12:36 AM