Context is everything

Disclaimer: I am hesitant to talk about journalism’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan because doing so would inevitably involve my political perspective. I cannot remain politically objective if I am discussing why and what journalists should be skeptical of concerning our current military operations.

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS
Journalists are supposed to be gatekeepers. We are part of the system of checks and balances that is integral to democracy. It is our duty to be the most skeptical, to ask the most questions, to be pessimistic, to be untrusting.
Journalists don’t ask enough ‘why’ questions of officials. It is important for news audiences to understand the ‘why’ behind the ‘what.’ Telling readers every day that people died in one location and killed each other in another does not help them understand why it’s happening or what and whom it’s affecting.
We should challenge use of jargon and the political non-answers that are perpetually spewed out of politicians’ and military officials’ mouths.
All questions about her loyalty aside, Judith Miller didn’t provide enough substance for her claims while reporting about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Her nebulous sources should have been clearly identified and her evidence supported. But it wasn’t. And her editors should have looked past the Pulitzer badge that goes with her name, and questioned her.

FEEDING FLAMES
The public accuses the press of feeding the flames of war and opposition. We can’t win because we’re the ones (hopefully) providing all sides of the news. So when officials make an announcement about weapons of mass destruction, we’re going to report it. And we should follow up on it with our own research.
After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration played the role of Chicken Little.
The sky was falling.
Other countries were harboring terrorists: We went to Afghanistan. Weapons of mass destruction were threatening our security: We went to Iraq.
Did anyone question these assertions? Not enough. I’m not going to make a statement here about whether I think the Bush administration’s claims were right or wrong. But I can say that journalists didn’t question things enough.
So why didn’t we challenge officials? Why didn’t we ask for harder evidence? I think part of that answer lies in the wall government often puts up between policy making and the press. Politicians tell the press they can only know what they can afford to know. But how do we know that’s even true? Can we ever truly know whose interests they're serving?

WHAT WE CAN DO
As the proverbial “they” say, hindsight is 20/20. Should we have asked more questions about political motives and economic interests concerning Iraq? Definitely. But we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for several years now. And we probably won’t ever completely pull out. We still have military personnel in Korea and Vietnam, after all.
We should learn from our experience with this administration – and previous others – and ask the tough questions. The media should never have to feel inhibited or intimidated by officials. It’s politicians’ and journalists’ job to serve the public. And we shouldn’t let people stand in the way of that.

One of the best things we can do for readers today is provide context for them. Audiences have lost sight of how we got to Iraq and Afghanistan.
It amazes me that, in the face of civil war in Iraq, people don’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni.
How much money have we spent? How much will we spend over the course of the next 20 years? How much progress has been made? How many troops have been killed and injured? What are the claims people make in favor of being in Iraq and Afghanistan? What are the claims people make against being there?
It is our duty to answer every question that could be asked about these issues. The best way I can think of doing this is through the use of infoboxes. Just two inches of copy with background information or type about how the issues affect readers could make a world of difference.

We aren’t doing good enough a job of breaking the issues down for readers. They’ve been reading every day about car bombings and the number of people killed. And the numbers are losing meaning.
People need to be reminded of the reasons given for why we got involved in the Middle East. People need to know what life is like for Iraqis and Afghanis.
People need to be told how these issues affect them.
When events occur thousands – even just hundreds – of miles away, Americans tend to take an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. If it doesn’t affect them as part of a capitalistic society, they don’t care. They don’t seek answers. They’d rather not know the gory details.
But our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is having an affect on us and our future. We should be preparing people today by educating them, giving them the information they can use to make decisions about their lives – and their votes – that can help determine what happens later.