Why you can't trust the press in Iraq

The BBC, like most media reporting from Iraq, report only the bad news or if there is no bad news to report, they resort to the "man in the street" reporting. But even here they only seem to be able to find the bad news "man in the street".

Here is a writer of a different sort who exposes one news organization's, The Washington Post, reporting that is typical of the biased reporting we are getting from Iraq.

Eric M. Johnson, a writer in Washington D.C., participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Marine Corps reservist.

Bennett might have added that not only are the reporters "distanced" from Iraqis, they're distanced from Iraq itself. Covering it from Baghdad is like covering California from a secure bunker in south-central Los Angeles. Sure, a lot happens in L.A., but you're going to miss important things if you don't go to San Diego or San Francisco, or even Bakersfield once in a while.

Chandrasekeran’s meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in the Washington Post, until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it, just like journalists were forced to admit reality at the end of the Cold War. Or else their words will have their effect, and Western journalists have to flee the country as it disintegrates.

Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.

The same holds for the BBC's reporting from Iraq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------