"Shoe leather" reporting
Have you seen the video of an Iraqi TV reporter hurling his shoes at President Bush? What am I talking about, of course you’ve seen it.
I was running on the tread mill at 7 a.m. this morning and I swear it was on every major news morning show on constant repeat. It’s the news networks own “viral” video. I heard Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki wanted to confiscate all the video tapes, but the Americans let the reporters have their tapes. I’m sure Bush aids are feeling a little miffed that the video is getting so much air time. Critics of the mainstream media (MSM) are probably cursing the networks for focusing too much on the bizarre and not enough on the substance of what was a much more substantative presidential visit to the Middle East, but then the video’s popularity with networks shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Sure, there’s much more worth reporting on, but this video is the must-see video of the month, if not year, given Bush’s unpopularity. And at it’s core, this is a critical function journalism provides the public. One of the news values I learned in J-school is “novelty,” and this video has it in spades.
So, media pundits and MSM media haters can condemn the endless airing of this video (heck, I had to resist the temptation to curse the TV myself), but I say let the video run and run and run. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone needs to see it for themselves. The networks will get it out of their system soon enough.
While I agree it should have been shown, should it be the #1 news story around? Seriously those that aren’t blind know that he’s not well liked in any country around the world, including ours and this particular clip isn’t going to do anything to increase that hatred.
So, other than the entertainment factor, what good does it do? An important question would be, “was something important accomplished on Bush’s visit?” I guarantee you that 99.9% of the people you ask wouldn’t be able to tell you anything other than an Iraqi threw shoes at him.
And mainstream media wonders why people are moving away in droves to alternate forms of information…
Where the MSM dropped the ball (I guess that makes me a “hater”) was not in showing the video. The video is good stuff, not only because it shows the cat-like reflexes of President Bush, but also because it shows to what extent opponents to “hope and change” in Iraq have been reduced.
Throwing shoes? That’s a serious downgrade from blowing up civilians. (Of course, the MSM never thought of it that way. They couldn’t look past their own perception that the video was embarrassing to Bush.)
No, the ball dropping came in failing their duty to adequately characterize the shoe thrower. Take this piece in the WaPo for instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121500161.html
What are we told about the shoe thrower’s politics? Next to nothing. About the only clue we get is that he is drawing a lot of support from the al Sadr crowd, the radical and violent losers in the new Iraqi freedom.
It would seem to me that if a “reporter” threw his shoes at The One, there would be no end to the investigations into his “right-wing” background. In fact, all you need to do to have your politics picked over with a fine tooth comb in this country is to ask the wrong question.
Poor Joe the Plumber. If only he had thrown his shoes at Bush, no one would be interested in what prompted such an action. Instead, like the WaPo, “reporters” would be too busy with hero worship to think to look any deeper.
As to the larger issue of media critics: What the MSM doesn’t seem to realize is that critics of the media are thus out of a devotion to the MSM. They don’t wish to kill it, they wish to save it. Unfortunately, the MSM – and sadly you Mr. Achen, to a degree, as its defender (or enabler as the case may be) – seem obsessively determined to hit the glacier rather than stop, think, and adjust course.
As for Bill, he provides further evidence that, for the left, politics remains little more than a popularity contest. Never mind right and wrong, all that is important is whether we are well-liked. The global equivalent of a political swimsuit competition. As such, all America needs is a leader who understands that hair spray will keep the bottoms from riding up and a little tape goes a long way toward improving the bust line.
Oh and, of course, a desire for world peace.
My point was only that the MSM’s repeated airing of the video in the 24 hr. period following the incident was understandable since it was the equivalent of people driving past an accident scene. People’s curiosity was being satisfied, right or wrong as it may have been.
As for the MSM’s dissection of the incident and the perpetrator, I have no detailed comment. Like my views on election coverage, I presume that one’s stance on the MSM and this particular incident are largely a matter of your world view. (I use the term “haters” because there seems to be so much vitriol associated with criticism of the MSM.)
I don’t know about being a defender of the MSM, or even an enabler, that’s kind of like saying a republican supports the Republican Party don’t ya think? I am a journalist. I consider myself a professional. I do support what I consider to be good journalism. The MSM on a whole does provide good journalism much more often than the “haters” give it credit for. Of course, criticism of the MSM isn’t baseless either, and I’d be happy to concede this on a case-by-case argument, and less in a discussion rooted in generalities.
I’m well aware the glacier approaches. I appreciate your comments as they help me stop, think and perhaps even “tweak” course a tiny bit. : )
Ahhh. The truth about the Shoe Thrower finally emerges:
“AP has completely lied in its report. None of our family members has made any comments about my brother’s opinion on Iran… Muntader is a Shiite who is fond of Iran,” Uday said.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8710011259
This, despite the AP’s effort to paint him as a centrist in the Iraqi political spectrum:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_shoe_tossershoe_tosser
I’m sure the AP’s error was just that, despite the long emerged pattern of shading stories to put the US in the worst light. And what’s worse than a shoe attack by a reasonable centrist?
I’m sure it was just a simple mistake though (has there been a correction issued?) and not deliberate. Oops, there I go “hating” again. I need to learn to accept that the hundreds of errors made by the AP in the last eight years, the vast majority of which were at Bush’s expense, were mere coincidences in a sea of “good journalism.” Ahem.
As for you Jeff, you say:
“As for the MSM’s dissection of the incident and the perpetrator, I have no detailed comment.”
Why not? After all, what good is criticizing the surface while ignoring the substance? Hitting the MSM on showing the video comes off, than, like an easy wink-wink-nudge-nudge target that allows you to whistle past a graveyard full of real issues.
Ah yes, the truth. I’m so glad to see that it is finally emerging. Thank you Fars News Agency for the clarity. Glad this is settled.
Just a few things. I didn’t have any detailed comments at the time because I simply didn’t follow the story all that closely. Forgive me for feeling compelled to comment on something without basing my PhD research on the subject. Obviously, you’ve done your homework and it’s hard for me to comment on something I haven’t thoroughly and thoughtfully researched. My blog post had, as I have pointed out, attempted only to address the need for news organizations to repeat the video within the initial 24 hrs. of the event, and was not addressing the detailed reporting that followed.
There is indeed a graveyard full of issues. You may not be a “hater”, but you’re dangerously close to wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. After perusing some of the stories on this issue, I find less clarity than your link to Fars News Agency provides. (Is this a regular source of information for you?) Even Fox News has based it’s story on the AP report with no follow up that I could find. Granted, the danger is failing to accurately report on stories of this magnitude (or any story for that matter) is that the public is done a great disservice that isn’t easily reconciled. Public perception becomes fixed. Journalists would be well served to remember that in their rush to break news. Their responsibility is great and outrage at any news organizations that falsely report is deserved. I think that in this case, there are many facts that are in dispute. Much of the details of this reporter’s life and personal views are coming from quotes from people that know him. How accurate is that supposed to be!?
Secondly, this incident is clearly about much more than a man, his shoes and a head of state. Please tell me you understand that?
I’m not going to say the shoe thrower hates Iran or loves the Mullahs. The media as a whole doesn’t seem to agree on the issue. In fact, many news items coming out of Iraq are suspect. Ask any reporter who’s worked in Iraq and I bet they’ll tell you the truth is especially hard to get at there. Perhaps the MSM has been too quick to portray him as a centrist, but does the notion that ONLY radicals associated with extremists or terrorists would throw their shoes at Bush really hold water with you? Do you deny that he was kidnapped or that his TV reports focused on victims of violence in Iraq? Do you deny that this man has been reporting on the war, not participating in it? Doesn’t sound like a terrorist to me.
And aside from his political leanings, isn’t the issue of symbolism of significance here? It has clearly given voice to some sentiment in the Arab world. You can refuse to believe that any reasonable, peace loving Iraqi would celebrate the shoe throwing gesture at your own peril. And you’re wrong to dismiss the liberal view of world politics to a popularity contest. What others think of us is VERY important. Do you not understand the basic concept behind diplomacy? We can’t make endless enemies and shun world opinion without consequence. With the dangerous possibility of some guy sneaking a nuclear bomb in a backpack into our country, I’d say we can’t afford to make even a few enemies.
I guess this is where we come to differing world views again. I believe we need to make friends, listen to the signs, reach out to opponents, and take steps to guard ourselves against the perpetrators of senseless violence. It seems to me many conservatives prefer to puff up our chest as a nation, force others to do our bidding while withdrawing from any commitments to other nations and tell them to stay out of “our” affairs?
The understandable response to that type of attitude from a non-violent, non-terrorist may very well be to stand up without a mask on, without getting paid by someone else, and throw a shoe.
You say (I’m pull quoting here):
Ah yes, the truth. I’m so glad to see that it is finally emerging. Thank you Fars News Agency for the clarity. Glad this is settled…I find less clarity than your link to Fars News Agency provides. (Is this a regular source of information for you?)
I detect a note of sarcasm. But I would expect that you, as a journalist, would understand the meaning of the word “source.” Of course, Fahrs isn’t the source of the information I provided; that came from Shoe Thrower’s family. Do you have reason to dispute their knowledge of Shoe Thrower?
Insinuating that Fars is not credible is weird coming from you in many ways. First, it is akin to me saying your original post is bunk because You Tube isn’t a credible source. Second, it is a news agency, not a blog. You know…full of hard working journalists just trying to make an honest living. Certainly you aren’t suggesting that some bonafide news sources aren’t credible…that sounds kind of “wild-eyed,” if you know what I’m saying.
On Shoe Thrower, I don’t recall ever saying he was a terrorist; only that, according to his own family, he seems to have radical leanings. I don’t understand this statement:
Much of the details of this reporter’s life and personal views are coming from quotes from people that know him. How accurate is that supposed to be!?
Who do you talk to when you want to know more about a news subject…strangers? Of course not. You talk to the people who know the subject (or, at least I hope you do). I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. Who better to speak with than the people who knew him?
You say:
You may not be a “hater”, but you’re dangerously close to wild-eyed conspiracy theorist
Based on what? The fact that I don’t trust the American media to be fair? A conspiracy theorist is someone who believes something way outside the mainstream based on, not evidence, but a hunch. But I can show again and again examples of media imbalance and my opinion of the MSM is shared by the vast majority of Americans, who also believe the media is biased (its credibility is roughly on par with Bush’s). The conspiracy theory here would be to deny all of the evidence and public sentiment in favor of a belief that fits your picture.
Having said that, your characterization of me as a conspiracy theorist was unfair and ungenerous. Something much more in line with Matt Perkins brand of “debate.” It was beneath you.
As to the rest, of course diplomacy is important. But not at the expense of our national defense or our beliefs. You seem to forget that the lead up to Iraq was rife with diplomacy and that our typical allies, like France and Russia, were discovered to be neck deep in dirty Iraqi business (oil for food).
“Puff up our chests?” As FDR once said, diplomacy involves walking softly while carrying a big stick. The liberal mentality is that walking softly is enough. There seems no grasp that successful diplomacy is based on the premise that you can and will back up what you say.