While browsing the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism web site today, I stumbled upon a December 2007 study entitled, “The Portrait from Iraq: How the Press Has Covered Events on the Ground.�  Before continuing, it is important that I note that I am an avid fan of the Project for Excellence.  The institution’s work is paramount to public understanding of and about the inner workings and outer affects of mainstream media coverage.

The introduction to the report opens with the obvious:

Through the first 10 months of the year, the portrait of Iraq that Americans have received from the news media has in considerable measure been a grim one.  Roughly half of the reporting has consisted of accounts of daily violence.  And stories that explicitly assessed the direction of the war have tended toward pessimism…

I must say that the Project for Excellence did a more than adequate job in remaining non-partisan in its analysis of American media outlets and their accompanying coverage of the events that unfolded in Iraq throughout 2007.  There were no moments in which I felt the report tilt to either side of the political spectrum.  This, in effect, is the primary reason I seek Project of Excellence documents when I conduct my own media analysis.

I have always been a staunch believer in the existence of an inherent political slant in and among mainstream American media outlets.  Overall, our outlets lean left; it is a slight and unintended lean, but an obvious one, nonetheless.  I have written many times on this topic and with great fervor.

Anyone who spent even a small proportion of his or her time consuming media during 2007 would have been able to see the overt negativity that characterized the majority of the stories about U.S. operations in Iraq.  Now, before you get frustrated, do understand that this negativity is not indicative of any bias; this is not what I am I insinuating.  While overwhelming negativity in coverage makes it seem as though the media were out to slander the Bush administration and America’s military action, simple negativity does not prove bias.  If negative events happen by the dozens, they must represented in media.  However, in Iraq, the positive events never seem to make it to the small screen.
 
One must bear in mind the fact that 2007 was unequivocally the worst year for U.S. casualties in Iraq.  This is so say that the violence and destruction seen since the war’s inception became increasingly more concentrated this past year.

Still, when looking at the full picture, I find myself concentrated intently on a statement that was made in the Project for Excellence report:

The findings suggest, among other things, that the bigger question may be not how the press interprets events but what kinds of events get covered, especially by a press corps whose movements are severely restricted in Iraq by the threat of attack and who are most mobile when embedded with U.S. troops.

The above statement possesses two prongs that must be examined further to fully understand what is occurring in terms of media coverage.  First, we must consider access.  Iraq is completely unsafe and thus conditions are unfit for American journalists to travel and cover all that is occurring throughout the nation.  The Project for Excellence report mentions (and rightfully so) this lack of access as a major blockade in media coverage.

And while I understand the constraints, I must say that U.S. media outlets did not exert themselves prior to the surge in violence to relay to American viewers even a small proportion of the plethora of positive and uplifting events that were occurring in the region.  While the outlets focused primarily on the violence (often times the journalists placed themselves in harm’s way to “get the story first�), many of the positives were left in the dust for American soldiers and other bystanders to return home to report to much smaller and less syndicated audiences.  While access is restricted now, I do believe that coverage was never all encompassing considering the diverse happenings in Iraq; this, I believe, is a result of the first prong in the above selection: The kinds of events that get covered.

While conditions worsened in 2007, it is not fully accurate to act as though mere mentions of progress had to be abandoned due to access.  There have been secure areas in Iraq for some time now, yet outlets have remained close to the violence, often capturing the grave details and reporting them for everyone to see.

While the Project for Excellence report did a good job of balancing the assertion that access has (and I’m not saying it hasn’t) limited journalists, the report’s composers did make some unforeseen errors when they sought to incorporate journalists’ opinions of Iraq war coverage as corroboratory evidence:

When asked about the picture the press has given of Iraq, 70% say it has been accurate.  Another 15% said the press has made the picture look better than it really is, while a 3% said it has focused too much on the negative.

Ironically, using a 2004 Pew study, one can easily see journalists’ self-professed political affiliations.  When it comes to national journalists, 41% of print journalists are either “liberal� or “very liberal,� while only eight percent of print journalists cite themselves as either “conservative� or “very conservative.�  A statistically significant disparity exists among broadcast journalists as well.  Of course, the largest proportions claim that they are “moderate,� which is most likely a result of the idealistic notion that journalists can free themselves from bias (it’s impossible to break down the psycho-social barriers that dictate everything we do – including the stories we’re attracted to exploring further, which can result in unintended consequences).

It’s misleading (although not intentionally) to ignore political affiliation when claiming that 70% of journalists polled believe that the war has been represented properly, is it not?  Consider the fact that many liberals see no bias in the mainstream media; this is clearly indicative of the fact that coverage aligns more with their political likings, whereas Fox News – which most liberals are vehemently opposed to – does not.  Clearly, the more liberal the journalist, the more likely he or she is to accept negative coverage as normal and/or representative.  It’s human nature to accept what falls most within our nature.  If one closely examines the proportions mentioned above, the disparities in opinion regarding representation are similar to professed political ideology.  Interesting, is it not?

These issues are perplexing, but do feel free to explore the recent (Dec. 2007) study.  It’s worth the read, as are most Pew studies.

Guest post written by Billy Hallowell. Visit his web site.

People from around the United States have noticed Billy Hallowell’s hard work and dedication. He has been published/featured in political and cultural books, textbooks as well as articles and websites focusing on the youth of America and its role in the future of the world. In 2003, he attended the World Bank’s conference on youth development in Paris, France. Over the years, he has become known as a major force among young people and has received prestigious journalism and community awards for his work. Since he was 15-years-old, Billy has been working through the communications industry to connect and reach out to his peers.

Technorati Tags: billy hallowell, Iraq, War in Iraq, media coverage, liberalism, project for excellence, pew research