Iraq Reporting Should Come With a Warning

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


At the Nation’s blog, Tom Engelhardt, reflecting on a comment by New York Times Iraq reporter that “98 percent of Iraq, and even most of Baghdad, has now become ‘off-limits’ for Western journalists,” has this to say:

Here’s the problem. I’ve been reading New York Times reportage since the invasion of Iraq began and I don’t remember running across a figure like that — and neither has just about anyone else who happens to have been reading a major paper in the US for the last year. When, way back in September 2004, an e-mail from the Wall Street Journal‘s fine reporter Farnaz Fassihi slipped into public view, suggesting that “[b]eing a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest,” it was treated as a scandal in the media; her “objectivity” was called into question; and (if memory serves) she was sent on vacation until after the presidential election. While there was a vigorous discussion in the British press of what came to be called “hotel journalism,” it was hardly a subject here, once you got past The New York Review of Books.

Tom’s solution: a sort of news consumer’s health warning:

Cigarette packs have their warning labels, as do vitamin supplements. Shouldn’t our news have the equivalent? How about little pie-chart icons before each Iraqi story suggesting what percentage of the news pie had been available that day. Or a warning label that might say: “This ordinary piece was put together by American reporters locked in their well-guarded and barricaded buildings from scraps of information delivered by Iraqi reporters who can’t even tell their families where they work for fear of assassination.”

Worth reading in full.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate