Setting the agenda

What is our role as journalists in the war in Iraq? Well lets start with what our role is as journalists in general. To me, a journalist is supposed to educate. Specifically, they should help people understand how the news affects their daily lives.

The problem with the war in Iraq (well, one of the problems) is that people don’t care. There is no sense of urgency, even though we’ve been at war for over four years. Think about it, our nation has been at war for our entire college careers.

Studies have shown that people want news that affects them directly; it’s why so little attention is given to international news. Unlike Vietnam, there is no draft so many American lives are not interrupted by the war in Iraq. Therefore, they don’t want to hear about it all the time.

Journalism should take the war and show people how is affects them. How does this war change American lives?

As for giving people local news and giving little attention to international issues, I am strongly against it. Is journalism about what people want to know or what people need know? They say journalists set the agenda and decide what is news. Is Aleck Baldwin yelling at his daughter really more important than the war this country is involved in? That’s what I got from the two hours of CNN I watched Saturday morning. Stars before soldiers…

When news networks and papers do cover the war it’s always the same: a lot of numbers (mostly death tolls) or commentary about how it’s hurting Bush and the Republicans. No matter what side of the bench your on, I think we can all agree that we’re tired of hearing Dems and Reps go at it. And so are the American people, so why to journalists continue to cover it?

Instead of just telling us how many people died in a car bombing, tell us what it means. How many bombings have there been since the start of the war and what is being done to stop them? Is the situation in Iraq getting better at all? What are the positive and negatives about withdrawing the troops. I understand that these are difficult questions to answer in a war that is festering with scandal, secrecy and contempt, but why, then, do we even have reporters there risking their lives to get mediocre stories? Where is the analysis, the in depth reporting of what its really like or what this war really means for our country.

I admit there is some great reporting that comes out of war coverage; however, when that happens it’s often buried in the “international/national” section of the paper or in the middle of the broadcast. Our nation is at war. War makes the section front. I know we like local content, but on a slower local day why not put a story about the war on the front instead of an AP fluff piece? A reader shouldn’t have to dig to get information on the war.

Watching war coverage is sad and depressing. I don’t like hearing about how many young men and women died or how many people died in today’s bombing. And, after a while, I ignore it or become immune. That’s why it is so important for journalists to keep people interested and learning more about the war. It is our job to motivate people to form an opinion on the war, not to make the immune to it.