NOW They Tell Us
New York Times coverage shows independence (at last)
By Chris Daly
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING about the special report on Page 1 of the Sunday New York Times (Sept. 9) was that it existed at all. Taking up the bulk of the front page space “above the fold,” the report was an effort to supply readers with a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq, just ahead of the long-awaited report by Gen. David Patreus.
What’s significant about the Times’ report is that it was the product of independent, on-the-ground reporting. It was not a summary of things that were said by experts or other people. It was first-hand.
Whether the report was correct in every particular is another question. Whether the conclusion is justified by the facts is open to dispute.
But that is precisely the point. Those of us who cannot go to Baghdad and see for ourselves are entirely dependent on those who are there on the ground. In a time of war, what could be more valuable to those reader/citizens who must ultimately decide what to do in Iraq?
The story also reflects the institutional heft of The New York Times. The page 1 piece bears two bylines, but that fact barely suggests the commitment behind the story. Inside, there is an italicized “credit box” listing 16 other people who contributed to the report, including military affairs specialist Michael Gordon and quite a few whose names appear to be Iraqi. Add to that the number of artists, photographers, videographers, and cartographers who created the accompanying visual package. Add to that the teams of editors who doubtless pored over the whole thing. There were probably no fewer than 40 people involved.
And it was hardly a “day” story. That is, this piece was not a reaction to events that occurred on Saturday. It was the results of weeks of sustained reporting targeted toward this final result. It was undertaken at the newspaper’s initiative.
Still, the report raises a question: Where was this kind of tough, skeptical, independent reporting before the war?
Or in the first couple of years of the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
After the passage of this much time, World War II was over.
By Chris Daly
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING about the special report on Page 1 of the Sunday New York Times (Sept. 9) was that it existed at all. Taking up the bulk of the front page space “above the fold,” the report was an effort to supply readers with a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq, just ahead of the long-awaited report by Gen. David Patreus.
What’s significant about the Times’ report is that it was the product of independent, on-the-ground reporting. It was not a summary of things that were said by experts or other people. It was first-hand.
Whether the report was correct in every particular is another question. Whether the conclusion is justified by the facts is open to dispute.
But that is precisely the point. Those of us who cannot go to Baghdad and see for ourselves are entirely dependent on those who are there on the ground. In a time of war, what could be more valuable to those reader/citizens who must ultimately decide what to do in Iraq?
The story also reflects the institutional heft of The New York Times. The page 1 piece bears two bylines, but that fact barely suggests the commitment behind the story. Inside, there is an italicized “credit box” listing 16 other people who contributed to the report, including military affairs specialist Michael Gordon and quite a few whose names appear to be Iraqi. Add to that the number of artists, photographers, videographers, and cartographers who created the accompanying visual package. Add to that the teams of editors who doubtless pored over the whole thing. There were probably no fewer than 40 people involved.
And it was hardly a “day” story. That is, this piece was not a reaction to events that occurred on Saturday. It was the results of weeks of sustained reporting targeted toward this final result. It was undertaken at the newspaper’s initiative.
Still, the report raises a question: Where was this kind of tough, skeptical, independent reporting before the war?
Or in the first couple of years of the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
After the passage of this much time, World War II was over.
Labels: Iraq, journalism, New York Times
posted by Chris Daly at 1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home