WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ?

How the media lost interest in a long-running war with no end in sight
By Sherry Ricchiardi
Sherry Ricchiardi (sricchia@iupui.edu) is an AJR senior contributing writer.

Armando Acuna, public editor of the Sacramento Bee, turned a Sunday column into a public flogging for both his editors and the nation’s news media. They had allowed the third-longest war in American history to slip off the radar screen, and he had the numbers to prove it. The public also got a scolding for its meager interest in a controversial conflict that is costing taxpayers about $12.5 billion a month, or nearly $5,000 a second, according to some calculations. In his March 30 commentary, Acuna noted: “There’s enough shame..for everyone to share.”

He had watched stories about Iraq move from 1A to the inside pages of his newspaper, if they ran at all. He understood the editors’ frustration over how to handle the mind-numbing cycles of violence and complex issues surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom. “People feel powerless about this war,” he said in an interview in April.

Acuna knew the Sacramento Bee was not alone.

For long stretches over the past 12 months, Iraq virtually disappeared from the front pages of the nation’s newspapers and from the nightly network newscasts. The American press and the American people had lost interest in the war.

The decline in coverage of Iraq has been staggering.

During the first 10 weeks of 2007, Iraq accounted for 23 percent of the newshole fornetwork TV news. In 2008, it plummeted to 3 percent during that period. On cable networks it fell from 24 percent to 1 percent, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The numbers also were dismal for the country’s dailies. By Acuna’s count, during the first three months of this year, front-page stories about Iraq in the Bee were down 70 percent from the same time last year. Articles about Iraq once topped the list for reader feedback. By mid-2007, “Their interest just dropped off; it was noticeable to me,” says the public editor.

A daily tracking of 65 newspapers by the Associated Press confirms a dip in page-one play throughout the country. In September 2007, the AP found 457 Iraq-related stories (154 by the AP) on front pages, many related to a progress report delivered to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Over the succeeding months, that number fell to as low as 49. A spike in March 2008 was largely due to a rash of stories keyed to the conflict’s fifth anniversary, according to AP Senior Managing Editor Mike Silverman.

During the early stages of shock and awe, Americans were glued to the news as Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled in Baghdad and sweat-soaked Marines bivouacked in his luxurious palaces. It was a huge story when President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, and declared major combat operations were over.

By March 2008, a striking reversal had taken place. Only 28 percent of Americans knew that 4,000 military personnel had been killed in the conflict, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Eight months earlier, 54 percent could cite the correct casualty rate.

TV news was a vivid indicator of the declining interest. The three broadcast networks’ nightly newscasts devoted more than 4,100 minutes to Iraq in 2003 and 3,000 in 2004. That leveled off to 2,000 annually. By late 2007, it was half that, according to Andrew Tyndall, who monitors the nightly news (tyndallreport.com).

“In broadcast, there’s a sense that the appetite for Iraq coverage has grown thin. The big issue is how many people stick with it. It is not less of a story,” said Jeffrey Fager, executive producer of “60 Minutes,” during the Reva and David Logan Symposium on Investigative Reporting in late April at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. The number of Iraq-related stories aired on “60 Minutes” has been consistent over the past two years. The total from April 2007 through March 2008 was 15, one fewer than during the same period the year before.

Despite the pile of evidence of waning coverage, news managers interviewed for this story consistently maintained there was no conscious decision to back off. “I wasn’t hearing that in our newsroom,” says Margaret Sullivan, editor of the Buffalo News. Yet numbers show that attention to the war plummeted at the Buffalo paper as it did at other news outlets.

Why the dramatic drop-off? Gatekeepers offer a variety of reasons, from the enormous danger for journalists on the ground in Iraq (see “Obstructed View,” April/May 2007) to plunging newsroom budgets and shrinking news space. Competing megastories on the home front like the presidential primaries and the sagging economy figure into the equation. So does the exorbitant cost of keeping correspondents in Baghdad.

No one questioned the importance of a grueling war gone sour or the looming consequences for the United States and the Middle East. Instead, newsroom managers talked about the realities of life in a rapidly changing media market, including smaller newsholes and, for many, a laser-beam focus on local issues and events.

Los Angeles Times’ foreign editor Marjorie Miller attributes the decline to three factors:

• The economic downturn and the contentious presidential primaries have sucked oxygen from Iraq. “We have a woman, an African American and a senior running for president,” Miller says. “That is a very big story.”

• With no solutions in sight, with no light at the end of the tunnel, war fatigue has become a factor. Over the years, a bleak sameness has settled into accounts of suicide bombings and brutal sectarian violence. Insurgents fighting counterinsurgents are hard to translate to an American audience.

• The sheer cost of keeping correspondents on the ground in Baghdad is trimming the roster of journalists. The expense is “unlike anything we’ve ever faced. We have shouldered the financial burden so far, but we are really squeezed,” Miller says. Earlier, the L.A. Times had as many as five Western correspondents in the field. The bureau is down to two or three plus Iraqi staff.

Other media decision-makers echo Miller’s analysis.

When Lara Logan, the high-profile chief senior foreign correspondent for CBS News, is rotated out of Iraq, she might not be replaced, says her boss, Senior Vice President Paul Friedman. The network is sending in fewer Westerners from European and American bureaus and depending more on local staff, a common practice for media outlets with personnel in Iraq. “We won’t pull out, but we are making adjustments,” Friedman says.

Friedman defends the cutbacks: “One of the definitions of news is change, and there are long periods now in Iraq when very little changes. Therefore, it’s difficult for the Iraq story to fight its way on the air against other news where change is involved,” such as the political campaign, he says.

John Stack, Fox News Channel’s vice president for newsgathering, has no qualms about allotting more airtime to the presidential campaign than to Iraq. “This is a very big story playing out on the screen every night… The time devoted to news is finite,” Stack says. “It’s a matter of shifting to another story of national interest.”

Despite diminished emphasis on the war, Fox has no plans to cut back its Baghdad operation. “We still have a full complement of people there, operating in a very difficult environment. That hasn’t gone down at all,” he says. Fox has two full reporting teams in Iraq as well as a bureau chief and some local staff, for a total of 25 to 30 people, according to Stack.

In late 2007, the networks — CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox — entertained the notion of pooling resources in Iraq to cut expenses. After much discussion, the idea was tabled. “It turned out not to be possible,” Friedman says. “To some extent, our needs are very different.” Cable TV is all about constant repetition; even during lulls it features correspondents standing in front of cameras making reports. “The networks don’t do that and don’t need the same kind of facilities,” Friedman says.

McClatchy Newspapers maintains a presence in Baghdad — a bureau chief, a rotating staffer generally from one of the chain’s papers and six local staffers — but the decline in violence since the U.S. troop buildup last year has resulted in fewer daily stories, says Foreign Editor Roy Gutman. “We produce according to the news. During the [Iraqi] government’s offensive in Basra [in March], we produced lengthy stories every day.” To add another dimension to the coverage, McClatchy tapped into its Iraqi staff for compelling first-person accounts posted on its Washington bureau’s Web site (mcclatchydc.com — see “A Blog of Heartbreak,” April/May 2007).

New York Times Foreign Editor Susan Chira says she is content to run fewer stories than in the past. “But we want them to have impact. And, of course, when there are big running stories, we will stay on them every day.”

Midsize dailies around the country face a different set of challenges. Many operate under mandates from their bosses to push local stories over national or international news in hope of boosting readership and advertising. In those publications, it often takes a strong community tie to propel Iraq onto page one.

Case in point: During the first week of February, the one story about Iraq that made 1A in the Buffalo News was headlined, “Close to home while far off at war.” It told how the latest gadgetry helps local service members stay in touch with loved ones. During the same week a year ago, four Iraq-related stories made 1A. None appeared to have a local angle.

“There is strong local interest because we have a lot of service members over there and we have had quite a few deaths of local soldiers,” Editor Sullivan says. “In my mind, there is no bigger nonlocal story. It’s the expense, the lives, the policy issues, and what it means to the country’s future. There is a general feeling that the media have tired of Iraq, but I have not.”

At Alabama’s Birmingham News, it takes a significant development to get an Iraq-related story prominent play without a local link, says Executive Editor Hunter George. During the first week in February, the Birmingham paper ran only one story related to the war. The topic: “Brownies send goodies, cards to troops in Iraq.”

Editors did not sit in a news budget meeting and make a conscious decision to cut back on Iraq coverage, George says. He believes the repetitiveness of the storyline has something to do with the decline. “I see and hear it all the time. It seems like a bad dream, and the public’s not interested in revisiting it unless there is a major development. If I’m outside the newsroom and Iraq comes up, I hear groans. People say, ‘More bad news.’ Stories about the economy are moving up the news scale.”

It was big news for Pennsylvania’s Reading Eagle when a wounded soldier came home from Iraq and was met by some 50 bikers at the airport. The “Patriot Guard,” as they are called, provided an escort. Townspeople slapped together a carnival to help raise money for a wheelchair ramp. “For us, it comes down to the grassroots level,” says Eagle reporter Dan Kelly.

Earlier that day, Kelly’s editor had handed him an assignment about a Marine from nearby Exeter Township who rushed home from the war zone to visit his ailing grandfather. By the time he got there, he was facing a funeral instead. “We look for special circumstances like this,” Kelly says. “We pick our battles.”

The Indianapolis Star ramped up coverage in January when the 76th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the Indiana National Guard was redeployed to Iraq. The newspaper created a special Web page to help readers stay in touch with the more than 3,000 soldiers from around the state, including graphics showing their hometowns and how the combat gear they wear works in the war zone.

“I don’t want to mislead you and say our coverage has been consistent over the past 12 months. It has rolled and dipped. We have had calls from people who believe we underplay events like bombings where several people are killed,” says Pam Fine, the Star’s managing editor until early April. Front-page coverage of Iraq was the same in the first three months of 2007 and 2008. A total of 23 stories ran in each period. Fine left the paper to become the Knight Chair in News, Leadership and Community at the University of Kansas.

The reader representative for the San Francisco Chronicle doesn’t think placement of stories about Iraq makes much difference. He reasons that five years in, most readers have formed clear opinions about the war. They’re not likely to change their minds one way or another if a story runs on page one or page three, says Dick Rogers. “The public has become accustomed to the steady drumbeat of violence out of Iraq. A report of 20 or 30 killed doesn’t bring fresh insight for a lot of people.”

Americans might care if they could witness more of the human toll. That’s the approach the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank took in an April 24 piece titled, “What the Family Would Let You See, the Pentagon Obstructs.”

When Lt. Col. Billy Hall was buried in Arlington National Cemetery in April, his family gave the media permission to cover the ceremony — he is among the highest-ranking officers to be killed in Iraq. But, according to Milbank, the military did everything it could to keep the journalists away, isolating them some 50 yards away behind a yellow rope.

The “de facto ban on media at Arlington funerals fits neatly” with White House efforts “to sanitize the war in Iraq,” and that, in turn, has helped keep the bloodshed out of the public’s mind, Milbank wrote in his Washington Sketch feature. There have been similar complaints over the years about the administration’s policy that bans on-base photography of coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (See Drop Cap, June/July 2004.)

Despite the litany of reasons, some journalists still take a “shame on you” attitude toward those who have relegated the Iraq war to second-class status.

Sig Christenson, military writer for the San Antonio Express-News, has made five trips to the war zone and says he would go back in a heartbeat. “This is not a story we can afford to ignore,” he says. “There are vast implications for every American, right down to how much gasoline costs when we go to the pump.”

Christenson, a cofounder of the organization MRE — Military Reporters and Editors — believes the media have an obligation to provide context and nuance and make clear the complexities of the war so Americans better understand its seriousness. “That’s our job,” he says.

Along the same lines, Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, faults newsroom leaders for shortchanging “the biggest political and moral issue of our time.”

“You can forgive the American public for being shocked at the recent violence in Basra [in March]. From the lack of press coverage that’s out there, they probably thought the war was over,” says Mitchell, who wrote about media performance in the book “So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq.”

Both journalists point to cause and effect: The public tends to take cues from the media about what is important. If Iraq is pushed to a back burner, the signal is clear — the war no longer is a top priority. It follows that news consumers lose interest and turn their attention elsewhere. The Pew study found exactly that: As news coverage of the war diminished, so too did the public interest in Iraq.

Ellen Hume, research director at the MIT Center for Future Civic Media and a former journalist, believes the decline in Iraq news could be linked to a larger issue — profits. “The problem doesn’t seem to be valuing coverage of the war; it’s more about the business model of journalism today and what that market requires,” Hume says.

“There is no sense that [the media] are going to be able to meet the numbers that their corporate owners require by offering news about a downer subject like Iraq. It’s a terrible dilemma for news organizations.”

Still, there has been some stunningly good reporting on Iraq over the past year.

Two of the Washington Post’s six Pulitzer Prizes were war-related. Anne Hull and Dana Priest won the public service award for revealing the neglect of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (see Drop Cap, April/May 2007). Steve Fainaru won in the international reporting category for an examination of private security contractors in Iraq.

McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau chief, Leila Fadel, collected the George R. Polk Award for outstanding foreign reporting. Judges offered high praise for her vivid depictions of the agonizing plight of families in ethnically torn neighborhoods.

CBS took two Peabody Awards, one for Scott Pelley’s report on the killings of civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha (see “A Matter of Time,” August/September 2006) on “60 Minutes,” another for Kimberly Dozier’s report about two female veterans who lost limbs in Iraq on “CBS News Sunday Morning.” Dozier herself was wounded in Iraq in May 2006.

ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff, who was injured in Iraq in January 2006, received a Peabody Award for “Wounds of War,” a series of reports about injured veterans.

There have been a series of groundbreaking investigations over the past year. In one of the most recent, the New York Times’ David Barstow documented how the Pentagon cultivated military analysts to generate favorable news for the Bush administration’s wartime performance. Many of the talking heads, including former generals, were being coached on what to tell viewers on television.

The Times continues to have a dominant presence on the ground in Iraq, sinking millions into maintaining its Baghdad complex, home and office to six or seven Western correspondents and a large Iraqi staff. Foreign Editor Chira says it has been more challenging to recruit people to go to Baghdad, but “we remain completely committed to maintaining a robust presence in Iraq.”

Those are notable exceptions; no doubt there are more. But overall, Iraq remains the biggest nonstory of the day unless major news is breaking.

Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, points to May 24, 2007, as a major turning point in the coverage of U.S. policy toward Iraq. That’s the day Congress voted to continue to fund the war without troop withdrawal timetables, giving the White House a major victory in a clash with the Democratic leadership over who would control the purse strings and thus the future of the war. Democrats felt they had a mandate from Americans to bring the troops home. President Bush stuck to a hard line and came out the victor. “The political fight was over,” Jurkowitz says. “Iraq no longer was a hot story. The media began looking elsewhere.”

Statistics from a report by Jurkowitz released in March 2008 support his theory. From January through May 2007, Iraq accounted for 20 percent of all news measured by PEJ’s News Coverage Index. That period included the announcement of the troop “surge.”

“But from the time of the May funding vote through the war’s fifth anniversary on March 19, 2008, coverage plunged by about 50 percent. In that period, the media paid more than twice as much attention to the presidential campaigns than the war,” according to PEJ.

“You could see the coverage of the political debate [over Iraq] shrink noticeably. The drop was dramatic,” says Jurkowitz, who believes the press has an obligation to cover stories about Iraq even when the political landscape changes. “It is hard to say that the media has spurred any meaningful debate in America on this.”

Is there anything to the concept of war fatigue or a psychological numbing that comes with rote reports of violence? Susan Tifft, professor of journalism and public policy at Duke University, believes there is.

She reasons that humans do adapt when the abnormal gradually becomes normal, such as a bloody and seemingly endless conflict far from America’s shores. Tifft explains that despite tensions of the Cold War, America’s default position for many years had been peace. Now the default position — the environment in which Americans live — is war. “And somehow we have gotten used to it. That’s why it seems like wallpaper or Muzak. It’s oddly normal and just part of the atmosphere,” she says.

Does an acceptance of the status quo indicate helplessness or rational resignation on the part of the public and the press? Is it a survival mechanism?

Harvard University Professor Howard Gardner, a psychologist and social scientist, has explored what it is about the way humans operate that might allow this to happen.

Gardner explains that when a news story becomes repetitive, people “habituate” — the technical term for what happens when they no longer take in information. “You can be sure that if American deaths were going up, or if there was a draft, then there would not be acceptance of the status quo,” Gardner wrote in an April 17 e-mail.

“But American deaths are pretty small, and the children of the political, business and chattering classes are not dying, and so the war no longer is on the radar screen most of the time. The bad economy has replaced it, and no one has yet succeeded in tying the trillion-dollar war to the decline in the economy.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof is one who has tried. In a March 23 op-ed column, he quoted Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz as saying the “present economic mess” is very much related to the Iraq war, which also “is partially responsible for soaring oil prices.” Stiglitz calculated the eventual total cost to be about $3 trillion.

Kristof tossed out plenty of fodder for stories: “A congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums spent on the Iraq war each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college… [A] day’s Iraq spending would finance another 11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers.”

In Denver, Jason Salzman has been thinking along the same lines. The media critic for the Rocky Mountain News suggested in a February 16 column that news organizations “treat the economic costs of the war as they’ve treated U.S. casualties.” After the death of the 3,000th American soldier, for instance, his newspaper printed the names of all the dead on the front page. To mark economic milestones, Salzman would like to see page one filled with graphics representing dollars Colorado communities have lost to the war.

“It’s hard for me to realize why more reporters don’t do these stories about the impact of the cost of the war back home,” he said in an interview.

Another aspect of the war that could use more scrutiny is the Iraqi oil industry: Where is the money going? Who is benefiting? Why isn’t oil money paying for a fair share of reconstruction costs?

Similarly, much more attention could be paid to the ramifications of stretching America’s military to the limit.

And what about the impact of the war on the lives of ordinary Iraqis (see “Out of Reach,” April/May 2006)? In April, Los Angeles Times correspondent Alexandra Zavis filed a story about a ballet school in Baghdad that had become an oasis for children of all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

“Now, more than ever,” Zavis wrote in an e-mail interview, it “is the responsibility of journalists to put a name and a face on the mind-numbing statistics, to take readers into the lives of ordinary Iraqis, and to find ways to convey what this unimaginable bloodshed means to the people who live it.”

Jurkowitz’s March 2008 report cited the “inverse relationship between war coverage and the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign — an early-starting, wide-open affair that has fascinated the press since it began in earnest in January 2007. As attention to Iraq steadily declined, coverage of the campaign continued to grow in 2007 and 2008, consuming more of the press’ attention and resources.

“Moreover, the expectation that Iraq would dominate the campaign conversation proved to be wrong,” the report said. It was the economy instead. Jurkowitz cites what he calls an eye-catching statistic: In the first three months of 2008, coverage of the campaign outstripped war coverage by a ratio of nearly 11 to 1, or 43 percent of newshole compared with 4 percent.

But all that soon could change. “The [Iraq] story, we believe, remains as important as ever, and the debate about the future conduct of the war and the level of American troop presence in Iraq during the presidential campaign makes it crucial for the American public to be well informed,” says the New York Times’ Chira.

Jurkowitz agrees. That’s why he’s predicting a renaissance in Iraq coverage in the coming months. Battle lines already have been drawn: Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican candidate, has vowed to stay the course in Iraq until victory is achieved. The Democrats favor withdrawing U.S. forces, perhaps beginning as early as six months after taking the oath of office.

“When we get in the general election mode, Iraq will be a big issue. The candidates will set the agenda for the discussion and the media will pick it up. This could reinvigorate the debate,” Jurkowitz says. “The war will be back in the headlines.”

Senior contributing writer Sherry Ricchiardi (sricchia@iupui.edu), who writes frequently about international coverage for AJR, assessed reporting on Iran in the magazine’s February/March issue. Editorial assistant Roxana Hadadi (rhadadi@ajr.umd.edu) contributed research to this report.