American news coverage of Iraq remains woefully deficient, writes Zaid Al-Ali* On 12 March 2005, a study of news coverage of the war in Iraq, which concludes that United States newspapers were broadly objective in their reporting, was published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study states that, "stories about the Iraq war were more negative (31 per cent) than positive (23 per cent). Yet they were just as likely to be neutral in tone (33 per cent)." It deduces from this that "the notion that coverage of the war, in print at least, was decidedly negative, accentuated the bad news and ignored the good, is clearly not borne out in the numbers." After the well known failures in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this came as something of a relief to the US press. Unsurprisingly, the results of the study were widely reported in the mainstream media, and for many they serve as a type of vindication after the criticisms of the past. The problem is that the report does not in any way constitute an approval of the quality of US news coverage, as it does not look into the accuracy of the facts that are reported in relation to Iraq. This was in fact the major failing of US newspapers before the war: the question was not whether reporters thought that it was a good or a bad thing that Colin Powell issued a statement to the UN on the eve of war in 2003, but whether reporters actually bothered to make inquiries as to the veracity of Powell's allegations in relation to weapons of mass destruction. This was something that they did not do, which is what eventually caused so many of the US' major news outlets to offer mea culpas after the arms inspections ended. The truth is that the quality of American reporting in relation to Iraq has not improved in any way since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Three examples relating to the elections in Iraq should serve as an illustration of this point. The first relates to an article published by The New York Times on 10 February 2005, about Adel Abdul-Mehdi, the first candidate that was put forward for the position of prime minister after the elections. The article, entitled "A top Shiite candidate for premier's post offers a secular vision for Iraq", begins by recalling a discussion between Abdul-Mehdi and Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani in 2004, as Abdul-Mehdi was getting ready to take part in drafting the Transitional Administrative Law, which was signed by Paul Bremer and which serves as a type of temporary constitution for Iraq. Al-Sistani, pointing out the fact that Abdul-Mehdi was not an elected official, questioned his right to take part in such a process. According to the Times piece, Abdul-Mehdi "did not hesitate to answer", and pointed out to Al- Sistani that he was not elected either, the insinuation obviously being that his religious stature did not grant him any right to comment on such issues. This story is featured prominently in the article, and is designed to prove to the American people that Iraq's then top candidate for the most important position in the coming government was secular. The problem is that it is simply not believable. The fact that Abdul-Mehdi is a senior member of a political party called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is apparently not a strong enough indication for the Times to realise that the entire premise of their article is off base. It should be obvious to anyone that a politician who derives his legitimacy from the support of a religious authority cannot question that same authority's right to comment on political issues. Confirmation of this story's implausible nature came a day after its publication when the article was translated and reprinted in Asharq Al- Awsat, a prominent Arabic-language daily that is circulated just about everywhere in the world. The article was reprinted word for word, the only difference being that the incredible tale proving Abdul-Mehdi's secular credentials was conveniently dropped. The reason for this was obvious enough: someone, whether the article's author, or its editor, realised that Arab readers, who are obviously much better informed about their own culture than American readers, would have laughed at the suggestion that Abdul-Mehdi could stand up to Al-Sistani in such a way. Another example is an article that was published in The Washington Post on 26 January 2005, entitled "Sunnis weigh the risks of running". The article focusses on two Sunni politicians, including Mishaan Jubouri, a former businessman from the city of Mosul, in the context of the elections that took place just a few days later. It describes Jubouri as the first mayor of Mosul after the invasion of Iraq, states that he is the leader of an important tribe, and provides details of how he stood up to Saddam Hussein and how he somehow managed to earn his respect as a result. This article, following a pattern that we have now become accustomed to, contains so many omissions and factual errors that it is completely misleading. Jubouri was, in fact, never the mayor of Mosul. What actually happened is that he had allied himself with the invading American army, which provided him with protection as he unilaterally tried to take control over the city, without consulting any of its inhabitants. Also, the article merely states that he "left office after a month", without providing any additional information as to why he stepped down. The truth is somewhat different: Jubouri was forced to flee the city after American soldiers killed 15 Iraqis during a demonstration that had been organised in order to protest his presence in the city. Finally, Jubouri is not, and never has been, the leader of his tribe. In fact, he was publicly excommunicated from the tribe on an Al-Jazeera report after it was discovered that he was collaborating with the occupying forces. None of this is confidential information. Had the author of the article been interested in checking his facts before publication he could have done so by asking just about anyone from the streets of Baghdad, by running a search on the internet, or by checking the pages of his own publication. A final example is the reporting surrounding the latest candidate for the position of prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, the leader of the Islamic Daawa Party. News reports have once again attempted to portray Jaafari as a secular candidate, despite the deeply religious nature of his party, and despite the fact that he is a leading member of the United Iraqi Coalition, which received the support, or "blessing", of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Jaafari has been interviewed a number of times in relation to his religious leanings, and many reporters -- from The Associated Press, The Boston Globe, The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, and London's Daily Telegraph, among others -- have asked him whether he plans for the establishment of a religious state in Iraq. On every occasion he answered in the same manner. He recalled that his wife is a surgeon and that it would therefore be unthinkable for him to forbid her from working in Iraq, or from driving a car. None of the interviewers who questioned Jaafari in relation to this point explored this response any further. The reporting in relation to this point does not contain any falsities, omissions or exaggerations, but it does exhibit a distinct failure on the part of every journalist involved to investigate or to probe an issue. Jaafari's story about his wife is a total non sequitur. It simply does not follow that because he wants his wife to be able to drive a car in Iraq, and because he wants her to be able to practise medicine, that he is a secular politician, for, as everyone well knows, in Iran, where a theocratic form of government is firmly in place, women are allowed to do both things. However, the law does not grant them equality with men in relation to many other issues, including inheritance, marriage and divorce, something that they currently do enjoy in Iraq. Jaafari merely avoided the question on each occasion by recalling the same issue surrounding his wife, and the journalists that have interviewed him failed to fulfil their obligations to investigate this important point to even the most superficial degree. Many readers, myself included, expected that after the American media's repeated failures in the build up to the invasion in 2003, reporters would have made an effort to improve their performance. We should have known better. Reporting by American journalists in relation to Iraq has maintained its consistently poor standards, and it is dismaying, to say the least, that a type of approbation of their work has been offered of late. * The writer is an attorney at the New York Bar and editor of www.iraqieconomy.org.www.iraqieconomy.org./i
