Same world, different news?

Despite the ease and economy of reading news on line, I often find that I read it better, or at least more thoroughly, when I read it on paper. So yesterday I bought the print edition of Le Monde.

Pages 1 and 2 had a series of headlines and articles about Iraq. The headlines included the following (all translations are mine):

1. “L’Irak au bord de la guerre civile entre chiites et sunnites” (“Iraq on the verge of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis”). This article explains that several members of the Iraqi parliament have these fears, and one, a Shiite MP, said that if the principal Sunni party “refuses to form a common front with the Shiites, I am sorry to say that a civil war is fast approaching. I solemnly ask all Sunni organizations to be in the same trench as we are. Those who keep quiet are accomplices to the crimes, and we cannot limit ourselves to simply issuing press releases denouncing them.” Indeed, them’s fightin’ words.

2. “Le retrait annoncé des troupes britanniques” (“Britain planning for troop withdrawal”) In this article, which contains lots of verbs in the conditional, a French tool for introducing doubt or uncertainty into the statement, even when there is no clear “condition”, the UK Minister of Defence is quoted as saying that his government is eagerly awaiting the day when Iraqi forces can take control of the country and UK forces can leave, but this cannot happen overnight and will begin only over the next 12 months. The article also cites a confidential ministry memo that allegedly says UK forces could be reduced by more than half between now and mid-2006. (Note that a “retrait annoncé” does not necessarily mean that Great Britain “announced a withdrawal”, which would be a much stronger statement.)

3. “Plus de 5 000 soldats américains accusés de désertion depuis 2003” (“More than 5,000 American soldiers accused of desertion since 2003”). When you click on the link, you’ll see that this provocative page-1 headline was actually not the title of the article itself on page 2. Anyway, the article recounts the misadventures of American soldiers, focusing especially on extreme cases, who, on leave in the States, do not want to return to Iraq. Apparently, some have gone so far as to mutilate or wound themselves so as to be unfit for service.

4. “Les manoeuvres de George Bush” (“George Bush’s maneuvers”). This article refers to the latest helping from Seymour Hersh over at the New Yorker and makes for fascinating reading in its own right. It’s about how the Bush administration tried – at least to influence, at worst to rig – the January 30 Iraqi election.

I didn’t see headlines with similar titles anywhere in the New York Times online edition of the same day (or today). Maybe it was buried somewhere, or maybe the stories appeared in other publications.

If not, this would be an example of why French people think the US media are cowed into a government-supporting position. Of course, it could also be an example of how French media are cowed into an anti-American position. Or it could be an isolated example taken from two isolated newspapers on a single, isolated day.

However, I think there’s more to it than that. I think there is a tendency in many of us to take a news report emanating from another country and generalize the point of view implicit in it to the point of view of all news reports emanating from that country. On the other hand I also think the range of public opinion that is evident when you are inside a given country appears to contract as you recede from it. Like the features of the Earth blurring into something relatively homogeneous when viewed from a spaceship receding from it, American journalism, in the mainstream media anyway, appears to have a common thread, if not a common base, when viewed from over here. There is a common set of assumptions and taboos. There is a common way of reporting an event. Again, the same is true of French media viewed from the USA.

Domestic debates

Riverbend has written a very funny piece entitled “Chalabi for the Nobel Peace Prize”. It’s about political debate in Iraq, but I won’t spoil it for you; you have to go there yourself and read it.

On a personal level, her post reminded me of political debate between my father and my uncle when I was growing up. Whenever the family got together for a holiday meal, they went at each other, one provoking the other with some comment intended to gain an advantage. My father, usually on the defensive, would raise his voice – I’d say little by little, but in fact it was all at once – while my uncle calmly, but loudly, reeled off anecdotes and analogies to prove his point, whatever it was. The analogies usually had some compelling logic to them, which infuriated my father, never a particularly logical debater, even more. My uncle camped on his position, convinced of the rightness and righteousness of it. Needless to say, the debates dominated the dinner hour and no other discussion was possible.

I say this took place while I was growing up, but in fact, the debates continued well into my adulthood (and their old age). In the later years the arguments became vicious. Several times, my father and my uncle stopped talking to each other, made amends, then stopped again. The arguments really ended for good only with my father’s death two years ago, but in his last few years, they had hardly spoken to each other. In the family, the rest of us had always said that things would be saddest, not when they argued, but when they stopped arguing.

My mother was always searching for a way to defuse the arguments. She tried to find subjects my father and uncle could agree on, but these were rare. She also tried to make light of the issue from time to time, but her attempts at humor were waved off by the two serious men discussing the momentous issues of our time.

In her own personal relationships, she always found common ground with other people and focused on it. There were very few people in our family she ever broke with completely. Looking back, I think that was part of her legacy to me: keep the lines of communication open.

Now, if you haven’t read Riverbend’s post yet, click here.

The Iraqi blogging scene

With a new major news item coming out every day, it’s hard to stick to one’s blogging ideas. Was Bush père Deep Throat? That question was asked on a French radio station yesterday morning during the 8-10am slot. Or how about this one: Peace in the Middle East! What won’t they think of next? I must say, if the pictures and videos I saw yesterday are anything to go by, Condi Rice has an uncanny ability to bring a smile to the face of even the most hardened Middle Eastern politician. But I digress. I’ve only just started this blog, and already I’m getting sexist. Back to my original topic: blogging in Iraq.

In the course of setting up my blog, I came across lots of others. Including – you guessed it – blogs about Iraq, and in particular, blogs from Iraq. The first one I saw I found truly amazing for its description, in beautiful English, of everyday life in “post-war” Iraq. Beautiful English because, as the blogger, pseudonym Riverbend, explains in an early post, she lived abroad for several years as a youngster.

But if I forward this link to you, I thought to myself, the CIA, FBI, CPA, INC and OIF will all be at my front door, noose in hand, within the hour. Then I looked around, and I found that Riverbend is not the only Iraqi blogger. (I also saw no agents in dark glasses.) Not only that, but the viewpoints expressed in these blogs cover the entire political spectrum. Here is one, called Iraq the model and written by two dentists if I remember correctly, that is far to the “right” of Riverbend, so much so that another blogger, Winter Soldier, has done an amusing comparison of the two. Some are much more to the “left” than Riverbend – I’ve put “right” and “left” in quotes because it’s hard to apply essentially Western labels to Iraqi politics – or maybe I’m just influenced by how well Riverbend writes, so I (incorrectly) think she’s more knowledgeable, reasonable and middle of the road. Many of these blogs list still other prominent blogs (e.g. Iraqi Bloggers Roundup, itself now inactive, but with a good list in the right-hand sidebar). Finally, A Family in Baghdad is similar in viewpoint to Riverbend, but arguably with more local color, even though one contributor has actually been writing from Amman, Jordan.

I can’t possibly reproduce here even a fraction of the wealth of information contained in these blogs. You’ll just have to read them. Spend a few hours with them. They’re poignant, wrenching, personal and insightful. I hadn’t seen anything remotely like them in any American (or British, French, German, Canadian, etc.) newspaper, magazine or TV program … until last week, when an article by an Iraqi woman appeared in Le Monde. (Pssst, I can translate it for you if you’re interested.)

I don’t know what this means for reality. The more I read about this war, the less I think I know. Everyone seems to have his or her own reality.

Answers to Saturday’s “quiz”. Country: South Vietnam. Date: Sept. 4, 1967.

Next post: “Food, glorious food” (unless it’s about something else).

Post-election views on Iraq

On Tuesday, The French daily Le Monde ran an article entitled, “The Iraqi Vote Accelerates the Thaw in European-American Relations” (my translation). The newspaper seemed very happy to report that George Bush had phoned Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder on Monday and that when their conversation ended, the USA and “Old Europe” had moved closer together. Interestingly, Le Monde also reported it as if it was primarily the Bush administration that was taking a step in Europe’s direction, not the reverse. It said President Bush emphasized the importance of including all Iraqis in Iraq’s political future, not only those who voted, and that all Iraqis, including Sunnis for example, must be represented in the Constitution-drafting process.

On the face of it, this seemed logical and harmless enough. Then Le Monde said something extraordinary. Condensed and paraphrased, it went like this: “France has been saying this since well before the election, but when she did, she was more or less openly accused of supporting terrorism.” The take-home message: after being arrogant and intolerant, America is finally, magnanimously, coming round to the European view.

Meanwhile, the New York Times article from the same day, entitled "Europe welcomes vote, but with usual split", seemed to cast an embarrassing light on Europeans, who now had to reconcile the obvious success of the voting process with their opposition to the war and subsequent American methods for installing democracy in Iraq. The message was: It’s up to the Europeans to make a move, and they haven’t yet. I'm not claiming that one viewpoint or the other is "right" or "accurate", just that they are very different. Business as usual, right?

Click here for the Le Monde article (in French) and here for the New York Times article.

OK, so the message really depends on the source. Amid all the official and journalistic euphoria about the Iraq elections, then, I’m not sure what to think. Until a week ago, I was reading that journalists were hardly able to leave the Green Zone, or, for the more intrepid, their outside-the-Green-Zone hotels. Here’s an example of what I mean.

Now nearly everyone’s reporting they were a rousing success. Indeed, I was surprised at the number of sources that seem to agree on the prevailing “party” atmosphere in the streets of Baghdad, the courage of the voters, their determination to vote despite all the threats and so on. But at least three dozen Iraqis lost their lives that day. Had it been any other day, the press would have reported that as alarming. But on Election Day, it seemed simply the price of freedom. Something seemed wrong, and I reserved judgment.

There are strong indications the Sunni turnout was very low, with all the ominous possibilities that implies for the ultimate credibility of the elected legislature. I don’t want to be a party pooper, but it just might be too early to cry victory over the insurgents and terrorists. It’s OK to be optimistic, but there’s still a long road ahead. It’s certainly too early for chest thumping. In fact, it almost always is. Adolf Hitler came to power through a democratic process. A flawed one, but aren’t they all?

For some historical perspective (a recurrent theme here), an article has been making the rounds in blogs about and from Iraq since the election. I’ve reproduced part of it here, except that I’ve taken out all the date and place references. Can you guess the country and the year? (Answers in my next post!)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3– United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in [country]’s presidential election despite a [insurgent group] terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from [capital city], 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the [insurgent group].
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the [insurgent group] to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. [name], who was running for president, and Premier [name], the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President […]’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in [country]. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, [year], to which President […] gave his personal commitment when he met Premier [name] and General [name], the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the [capital city] Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, [year], when President [name] was overthrown by a military junta.
Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

NYT. [date]: p. 2.

Write to me (frogrhythms@gmail.com) if any articles are no longer available when you click on them.
Next post: The Iraqi blogging scene.