A couple months ago, I asked a simple question. Nobody answered.
I'm going to ask again: In your opinion, who are the best wartime journalists working today? Who will our kids be reading in high school when they read about the Iraq War? Who do we trust with our truth?
Today, the Columbia Journalism Review posed a simple answer--we don't cover the Iraq War very well. If that's true, journalism can only suffer. They cite weekend statistics for Iraq War news, pointing out some glaring holes in our war reporting.
They offer some solutions, and take a fascinating look at how blogs can (and do) help encourage this sort of reporting. Fledgling writers need to think hard about this problem, because the country can't solve its problems if nobody reports on them.
"On Friday the Huffington Post's Eat the Press suggested a creeping sense of Iraq fatigue. The HP was referencing last week's Newsweek package which featured letters home from fallen American service members -- a package that by Friday only registered a pathetic seventy-six links on Technorati. That means that only seventy-six blogs linked to the package over the course of the week. By Sunday, that number had climbed to just 120."
I don't think individual voices are remarked upon in the degree you think they are when it comes to reporting the facts, which let's face it theoretically journalists are supposed to be doing. Perhaps a more apt question would be which information source will be the most sought after for the Iraq story, in which case I personally think newspapers.
The Hood Company
Posted by: Brian Hadd | April 3, 2007 4:47 PM | Permalink to Comment