media -- don't be too quick to judge

When it comes to covering the goings-on of Iraq, I think people are too quick to judge the media.

"The media is doing a horrible job of covering Iraq," soldiers reporting back home say. They're not reporting on all the good things happening. They're biased. They're harming the efforts there. They're money hungry -- and all the implications in that.

Granted, I have never been to Iraq and especially not during this "conflict." I'll also be the first to admit that I am not as informed as I should be about what's going on over there. But, today as I listened to a soldier share about his experiences over there, I was upset by these accusations he made -- among others -- and not just as a journalist.

I agree, yes, the media likely does go overboard on the bad things happening in Iraq. Yes, by and large journalists are liberals. Yes, sometimes they get itchy to scoop their colleagues and might not think about security issues. Yes, their publishers and owners are often money-hungry. (Journalists themselves are not money-hungry, it should be noted, or they would not be journalists. Journalists who are not Katie Courics might as well be working for their keep.)

BUT, we should all take into consideration when pointing fingers,

A: The media is covering a WAR. War means people are killing other people. That is the main action of a war. The building schools and infrastructure are sideline actions. By the nature of covering a terrible thing like a war, the vast majority of war stories will be bad news. And should be, probably -- we need to remember that though war may bring good ends, it is not in and of itself a good thing.

B. Soldiers are not neutral observers of what's going on in Iraq. They are over there working for the government and are by and large on the government's side. Like most journalists are probably liberals, most soldiers are probably conservatives. This is not to say that journalists have a more neutral view of what's going on but that we tend to trust the word of a soldier before we trust the word of "the media." This is also not to say that what soldiers are saying is not right.

C. Yes, good things are happening in Iraq because American soldiers are there. But building a school and building an electric plant cannot be top stories on the national evening news. Would you watch the newscast if the teaser said, "Up next: American soldiers add another layer of bricks to the the school they're building in the desert"? Maybe you would once, but you wouldn't every night. The good things that are happening are mostly features and not news. Features are usually not top stories. And you can't feature the same thing every night, so yes, the good stories will come less frequently.

D. While not a point I like to add, the media is trying to give the people what they want... and people like bomb news more than water plant news... If you don't like a news outlet, stop giving them your business or let them know what you think. If enough people don't like their practices, believe me, they will change -- the bosses are the ones making the money from the customers, and they will give the customers what they want.

E. In contrast to that point, one of the reasons for unbiased journalism (which probably isn't 100 percent possible) is to keep a check on government -- the Fourth Estate, if you will. If the government says "we should be at war," the media will ask the question, "should we really?" and in order to look unbiased and not take the party line from the government, they almost have to have many stories about "is the government right?"