Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The cry of an Iraqi journalist: What the New York Times does not say
The New York Times has given over one of its unsigned editorial spaces to the text of a very moving speech by Sahar Issa, one of six Iraqi journalists who won an award for "courage in journalism" from the International Women’s Media Foundation. Ms. Issa makes it clear how very dangerous it has been to cover news in Iraq for much of the last 4 1/2 years.
Unfortunately, it is not at all obvious what the editors are implying. If they regarded Ms. Issa's speech as news, they could have published the transcript of it as such. Instead, they quoted her without elaboration in a left-side unsigned editorial, so they must have intended for her speech to stand in for some opinion of their own. But what opinion? The Times does not say who it considers responsible for the brutalization of journalists in Iraq. If one were uncharitable and read the editorial in the context of all their other recent editorials about Iraq, one might leap to the conclusion that the editors blame the United States. But we are not mind-readers here, so maybe not. Perhaps the Times means to say that Iraqis love persecuting journalists as a sort of national sport. That does not seem like a typical NYT opinion, but, after all, journalists were brutalized in Iraq long before the United States took the country in hand.
In that regard, neither Ms. Issa nor the editors tell us whether the practice of journalism in post-Ba'athist Iraq, for all its risks, is more or less dangerous than under Saddam. Any discussion of that question would inquire into whether putative journalists actually practiced journalism in Saddam's Iraq. If actual journalism -- as opposed to flacking for totalitarians -- requires the unflinching reporting of facts unflattering to those in power, I respectfully suggest that it simply did not exist before April 2003. The editors of the New York Times know this, since they published Eason Jordan's famous admission more than four years ago:
Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard -- awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.
Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.
We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).
Yes, journalism in Iraq is dangerous. We knew that, and I join those who admire the journalists and bloggers -- both Western and Iraqi -- who have incurred these great risks to tell us what is happening there. But at least there is journalism in Iraq, which is itself a fundamental change from the days of Saddam Hussein. Does the New York Times believe otherwise? If they do not, why did they publish Ms. Issa's speech as an editorial?
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Oct 25, 12:44:00 AM:
Dont Ever expect the New York Slimes to tell 100% of the truth they will only give you the news they want you to read
By 
Ymarsakar, at
Thu Oct 25, 08:36:00 AM:
The Times seems to be conflicted. At one hand, Issa is a sworn enemy of the NYT given the NYT's present allegiances, but on the other hand, the Times feels a certain paternal loyalty to reporters as a whole. Reporters are said to stick together, at least if you go by the journalist ethics.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 25, 12:52:00 PM:
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Oct 25, 02:36:00 PM:
The only thing that sticks to dirt is more dirt.
By , at
Thu Oct 25, 04:58:00 PM:
"But at least there is journalism in Iraq, which is itself a fundamental change from the days of Saddam Hussein."
I'm sure that Ms. Issa's family will be greatly consoled by that if she is found dead in a ditch one misty Tuesday morning.
Incidentally, when Ms Issa says that her work continues "because I’m tired of being branded a terrorist: tired that a human life lost in my county is no loss at all", do you genuinely not realize who she's addressing?
Given that, I'm not sure why anybody would think that the NYT is "conflicted". I assume that they ran this as editorial because it doesn't require any further elaboration, and because they feel that she deserves a platform.
I'm sorry if you feel that she should be more grateful to you for being liberated from Saddam Hussein's regime, but there you go. Life is full of little disappointments.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 25, 05:20:00 PM:
"Incidentally, when Ms Issa says that her work continues "because I’m tired of being branded a terrorist: tired that a human life lost in my county is no loss at all", do you genuinely not realize who she's addressing?"
Of course I do. Congress.
By , at
Thu Oct 25, 05:33:00 PM:
Oh well. At least she tried to get through to you.
Ms. Issa says that she is "tired that a human life lost in my country is no loss at all in the eyes of the world." On the other thread you've just commented on regarding Israel and medical treatment, you've explained exactly what you think the value of a human life is - which is only as much as it's worth in terms of achieving your military objectives.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 25, 07:31:00 PM:
"Oh well. At least she tried to get through to you."
Oh my, you mean that speech was meant for me?! I wish she'd have told me...
I figured that that line was directed at the people agitating the most for quenching all hope for a united, peaceful Iraq... the people demanding American withdrawal. Because when *all three* of the great sectarian groups of the country want us to stay and fight terrorist scum... (who are the one's killing journalists... her children aren't lying about her profession because of us, or else this published speech was a suicide note) well, their lives don't matter. Who cares if their country is gobbled up by hungry neighbors or turned into a theocratic police state so long as no more Americans die, right?
I just simplified my first answer into a pithy one-liner. A shame that I had to explain it. It isn't funny that way.
"you've explained exactly what you think the value of a human life is"
I've done no such thing. You're not arguing with what I said. You're arguing with what you think (or wish) I said. I'm also pretty sure that I never said either the word "military" or "objective." *checks* Yep, never said either one.
What I did, futilely it seems, was to posit another analogy in the attempt to make the original point. (which you took literally, for some reason)
When I punctuated the analogy with the conclusion, the difference of criminal vs. mercenary, you said that they can be the same thing, without giving any qualification.
A more detailed explanation by Wretchard followed.
I suppose it's nice to know that people like you are overflowing with the milk of human kindness but not everyone thinks that way, as this thread demonstrates. And it's not a realistic way to expect states to behave, either.
"He talked about threatening to drown a man who does not do what you want, not actually drowning them. I'm fairly sure the distinction was lost on you."
Actually, yes, I apparently missed a word. But since a threat without the possibility of fulfillment is meaningless, it doesn't really alter the discussion.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 01:03:00 PM:
"I figured that that line was directed at the people agitating the most for quenching all hope for a united, peaceful Iraq... the people demanding American withdrawal."
Around 79% of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq; 47% of them believe think that those forces should leave immediately (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpoll.pdf). These are the people demanding American withdrawal, but I suppose that their opinions don't count for much with you.
"Because when *all three* of the great sectarian groups of the country want us to stay and fight terrorist scum... (who are the one's killing journalists... her children aren't lying about her profession because of us, or else this published speech was a suicide note) well, their lives don't matter."
Their lives matter absolutely, but there doesn't appear to be a link between the presence of US forces and the "united, peaceful Iraq" that we all dream of. At least, there doesn't appear to be a link in the minds of the people of Iraq. Don't get me wrong; I'm not convinced that withdrawal is the best course of action, but since the situation only appears to worsen the longer we stay there, I think it's worth considering.
"Who cares if their country is gobbled up by hungry neighbors or turned into a theocratic police state so long as no more Americans die, right?"
The lives of American (and other Coalition) soldiers are of equal value to the lives of Iraqi citizens. However that's not really relevant, since I am not arguing for withdrawal, and definitely not arguing for withdrawal on the basis that troops are dying. The relevant questions are a) whether the presence of US forces is likely to increase or decrease the chances of either of those outcomes, and b) whether it's any of your damn business, if that's what the people of Iraq want.
