Posted on 06/29/2004 1:01:16 PM PDT by Pikamax
By Eric M. Johnson 06/29/2004
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don’t get much notice – or in many cases, any notice at all.
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.
Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.
This effect is magnified because of the Post's influence on what other news organizations report. While its national clout lags behind the New York Times, many reporters look to the Post for cues on how to approach a story. The Post interprets events, and the herd of independent minds bleat their approval and start tapping on their keyboards with their hooves.
Chandrasekaran's crew generates a relentlessly negative stream of articles from Iraq – and if there are no events to report, they resort to man-on-the-street interviews and cobble together a story from that. Last week, there was a front-page, above-the-fold article about Iraqis jeering U.S. troops, which amounted to a pastiche of quotations from hostile Iraqis. It was hardly unique. Given the expense of maintaining an Iraq bureau with a dozen staffers, they have to write something to justify themselves, even if the product is shoddy.
This week, Chandrasekaran has a Pulitzer-bait series called "Promises Unkept: The U.S. Occupation of Iraq." The grizzled foreign-desk veteran -- who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies -- now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape. He finds the Bush Administration guilty. Such a surprise.
Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don’t know what they’re doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed with the little usurper: "'We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam's regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,' Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the building's spacious conference room. 'We cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this office'....Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhil's new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding. The entire city was ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish. In our headquarters, we had a small red splotch on a large map of Kut, representing the neighborhood that supported Abbas Fadhil. When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were mainly poor, semi-literate, and not particularly well-liked. They were marginal in every sense of the word, and they mattered very little in the day-to-day life of a city that was struggling to get back on its feet.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the province's water, electricity, medical care, and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city, and Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them.
Since he didn't, he couldn’t see how the Iraqis outside of the red splotch reacted to us. People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys.
None of those encouraging things made it into the article. Nor did anything about how we had been helping to fix the city’s problems as soon as we arrived. Just a quick-and-dirty sensationalistic piece about a local Islamist thug bravely going toe-to-toe with the legendary United States Marines. The general reaction to Chandrasekeran’s article was either laughter or dumb bewilderment.
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. Fadhil, chastened, asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed. Suddenly faced with a real confrontation, the "mayor" had backed down, and he left without any riots or bloodshed. The Americans took over the office that Fadhil said we should never occupy. The Post didn't cover any of that, either.
Don't take my word for it that the Post’s reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.
Bennett flatly concedes that they have a “dim picture” of what is happening in Iraq, (not that you would know it from the actual news articles he approves for publication.) "The people of Iraq...are leading their country, and ours, down an uncertain path. This is a story waiting to be told."
Waiting to be told? They have four or five full-time reporters there at any given time. What are they doing, if they're not telling the story of Iraq's new birth?
Bennett might have added that not only are the reporters "distanced" from Iraqis, they're distanced from Iraq itself. Covering it from Baghdad is like covering California from a secure bunker in south-central Los Angeles. Sure, a lot happens in L.A., but you're going to miss important things if you don't go to San Diego or San Francisco, or even Bakersfield once in a while.
Chandrasekeran’s meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in the Washington Post, until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it, just like journalists were forced to admit reality at the end of the Cold War. Or else their words will have their effect, and Western journalists have to flee the country as it disintegrates.
Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.
Eric M. Johnson, a writer in Washington D.C., participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Marine Corps. reservist.
His name sounds more Indian to me, or possibly from somewhere else in Southeast Asia. (Probably Hindu and not Muslim.)
But clearly, looking only 12 years old and getting all this power has gone to his silly America-hating head. He covered dot-coms until a couple of years ago? And the WP put him in charge of Iraq? That says more about the WP than it does about this predictable twit.
Like several of the Reuters "reporters" these guys have connections to all kinds of web sites, religious organizations and various liberal "anti-conservative" media organizations.
They are anything but unbiased.
They are not fans of the home team. Being negative about the war is fine, but spinning against the truth is not in the best interest of the Post. We need a documentary or two. It's probably coming. Many are only qualified to report on negative events. Their shareholders are responsible and need to get the ax out, soon.
The Washington Post isn't telling the full truth!!??
*swoon*
Thanks for your thoughts and prayers.....believe me when I say I am not as in the thick of things as say the Marines are in Fallujah and our guys around this country....
Allawi is a strong leader but he also has something akin to morals too. He will right the Iraqi ship (I hope I hope).
the liberals can call this a failure or whatever, that still won't help their boy win the election....
We will do everything we can here to make sure that their boy (nor his billionaire wife) gets nowhere near the White House.
I saw this and ran to FR to see if anyone posted anything about it. He was unbelievable. His main thesis was that because the Americans "dissed" Saddam's high command and Baathists by not allowing them to become the leaders of the "new Iraq", these heretofore secular and materialistic power mad (power mad is my term, not his) men became fervid Islamic warriors, looking to bring jihad to America as well as Iraq. They long for nothing more than to have Sharia law imposed everywhere!
This was one of the most ridiculous claims I have heard, yet the Time Bureau Chief pointed to his "living with" these people in their "training camps."
If he was hearing such tripe, they were only telling him what he wanted to hear.
Jon Scott could barely keep a straight face and it was obvious that Jon Scott thought he was a crackpot.
Bump for later reading.
bumpage!
bumpage!
bumpage!
bumpage!
bumpage!
One item of interest with a few different sources. He was kicked out of Pakistan in November of 2002 for having an expired visa, and because his Indian ethnicity presented unspecified "security implications". He was reporting on the war in Afghanistan from a location in Pakistan.
The only post I could find from him that wasn't related to either Afghanistan or Iraq was this one on usenet in 1995:
Rajiv Chandrasekaran (rajiv@twp.com) wrote:
: I am a Washington Post reporter working on a story about employers/bosses
: cracking down on employees who play computer games at work. Has this
: happened at your office? Are all games forbidden or only certain ones?
: Are you allowed to play them at lunch or after work?
: I'd love to hear from anybody for whom this is a problem. How does your
: employer enforce this policy? Do you find that playing games actually
: makes you more productive? What kinds of games do you play and how often?
: Please e-mail me at rajiv@twp.com or call me at the phone number below.
: If you don't want me to print your name, that's fine with me. But please
: include your name and phone number in the message so I can verify who
: you are and perhaps ask you some follow up questions.
My my. From workplace internet gaming reporter to international affairs chief in only 9 years.
Anyone have Ravi's e-mail address? I'd like to send him a copy of this, just to let him know he's been noticed.
Welcome to FreeRepublic! Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your situation?
... Okay, don't do that again.
Welcome to FR, brother, and thanks for taking care of business so my little girl can grow up free. You need anything, FReepmail this former grunt and we'll hook you up.
We in DC are Saddamed and dismayed by the WP's reportage.
BillF perhaps a chapter ping is in order?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.