Media still can't please left

by Scott Darnell

Daily Lobo Columnist

The intense military phase of the war with Iraq has come to a graceful close; our armed forces deserve many congratulations for the expediency of this conflict, as well as for the tact they used in carrying out their objectives.

Somewhat of a more interesting discussion lies not with the war's end however, but instead with the many issues surrounding how our media altered its coverage during this time of war.

No one can dispute the fact that our media employed more intrusive, never-before-seen tactics in covering the war with Iraq. Virtually every medium stationed embedded reporters with coalition forces, tickers and information bars continually ran across our television screens, television anchors and newspaper reporters were placed in almost every middle eastern country, and snazzy maps or three-dimensional simulations were used as often as possible.

The 24-hour inundation of information regarding the war with Iraq was, at times, a little over-the-top, but we must remember that our media conglomerates are businesses looking to turn profits and these very flashy new media tactics were simply a response to the demand that we offered up for them.

After the first Gulf War, many Americans felt the media could have done more to enhance the intrusiveness of their coverage. We knew we had the technology to get closer to the unfortunate actions happening in Iraq and elsewhere, and thus, we put more pressure on the media this time around to take advantage of our ever-expanding information age, and place us inside the conflict to a much greater degree - it's in our human nature to want to know more and in part, the media responded to our demand that they employ all their resources to allow us to do just that.

Another reason for the media's rigorous coverage stems from that many leftists were especially upset following the first Gulf War that our media didn't devote worlds of attention to the number of Iraqi civilians that died. During this war, they sure got what they wanted, as our media created hours of hoopla every time it was reported that civilians had died. They probed the government to disclose all circumstances surrounding civilian deaths, and then dwelled on the unfortunate event until it could be deemed that the incident was in the best interest of completing our military objectives or that it was a simple accident.

One would think the left-wing members would be happy with the media's handling of Iraqi civilian deaths - sadly, however, they're not.

With the left comes conspiracy theories - in all places, and at all times. Before this war, the media was supposedly conspiring with the government as a pro-war voice, partly because the media didn't cover civilian deaths too heavily in the first Gulf War, as well as because they covered what our armed forces were doing as active news, and didn't dedicate their entire broadcasts to anti-war movements.

Now that the media continues to effectively cover the anti-war voice, they supposedly still aren't doing enough because they won't outright endorse an anti-war stance. And, even though our media over-inflamed issues of civilian deaths in this war, they supposedly aren't doing enough because they didn't outright call our military egg-sucking murderers. The left wants unbiased war coverage by an intense and constant criticism of the federal government, and an outright endorsement of the anti-war movement. In other words, they wouldn't mind coverage so long as it's in their ideological direction.

Another example of the incessant conspiracy theory comes with embedded reporters, and the often-uttered leftist assertion that an embedded reporter won't dare report what's actually happening if it would mean criticizing the person saving his/her life. It's a cute statement that makes people giggle, but the fact is, what does the left say is not being covered? Are our armed forces slaughtering people left and right, doing highly unethical, immoral things? I don't imagine so - if they were, we'd hear about it. Instead, the embedded reporters seemed to stick with reporting battle conditions, weather conditions, and vague plans for the future.

I watch a lot of cable news, and never did I see an embedded reporter endorse the war, or conversely, oppose the war. Heaven forbid they mention that the United States killed fewer civilians in this conflict than in most throughout our nation's history - it's a fact and a report on our military's respect for the Iraqi people contains no bias whatsoever. They reported the facts, and it seems that it's not good enough - one is always part of a conspiracy unless one agrees with the left.

The gist of the issue, however, lies with the fact that we asked for the media coverage we've received during this war; we've asked to be closer, and the media has responded. It will be interesting to see what direction our media takes during the next crisis; I appreciate their efforts to bring us as close as possible, and it's a shame that their - for the most part - objective coverage will forever be denigrated by contorting, spin-master conspiracy theorists.