THURSDAY's LETTERS: Much Debate over Knight Ridder War Coverage

By: Greg Mitchell Letters, we get letters, we gets lots and lot of letters. The problem is, the "letters" section at this Web site is pretty much buried up there in the site index (this will probably come as a surprise to most of you reading this).

When we launch our new blog in September, publishing a lot of feedback will no longer be any problem. Until then, or until we are able to set up a more prominent letters feature right here on the home page, we will carry a daily entry in this spot, called, variously, "MONDAY's LETTERS," "TUESDAY's LETTERS" and so.

We will add letters as they come in, at the top, so check back every few hours, if you wish, for the latest update. Or, blog-like, you can respond to a letter you find here. Here's a start for Thursday, most recent first, with many more to come.

***

Mr. Mitchell:

We all admire the courage of the members of the press in Iraq. But the responses from yourself, Hoyt & Allam and the snide remark about Yost?s air-conditioned office only make his point. Since when did an air-conditioned office disqualify an opinion? Since when did battling terrorists for water bottles qualify someone as being more knowledgeable about military situations than military officers?

None of you address the issue Yost raised, selective reporting of only the bad, the difficulties and the failures in Iraq. None of you can find anything good to say about the current state of Iraq nor any improvements made, implying, if not saying directly, that nothing good has happened at all. The thousands who have returned and hundreds of military and citizens in Iraq blogs say otherwise. Are they all wrong? Those blogs also point out many difficulties missed by the press. Are they non-existent if you don?t report on them? If the army officer is blind because he?s stationed in the Green Zone, is Allam blind as well? Is she really so arrogant as to believe she knows more outside the walls than he does? And does she truly believe that the fight to liberate a nation and to bring down a dictator like Saddam not worth the loss of any life?

All these comments indicate that you have an agenda and that objective, truthful reporting, regardless of where the facts take you, is not part of it. I regret that because if the objective truth, or as near to it as you can get, is not the mission, why send the reporters into harm?s way? Why are they there?

A. Stewart O?Bannon, III

***

You've done it again. I never thought I see E&P ahead of the game, but you are and in damn fine style. Be proud. I've been to some of the places the St. Pauley boy only reads about, he needs a few weeks in the field,....I wana' watch, and oh yes he shouldn't forget to pack the flag, pic of mom and that apple pie, and whatever you do, don't forget the pix of W to keep you warm and safe at night.

Good work again,

Richard L. Fricker

***

In reference to this column:

I see what Mark Yost is saying, and also what Hannah Allam and Clark Hoyt are saying. All of you make good points. I especially liked how Yost described what was taking place from accounts that were told him by people there. I also liked Allam's pointed response.

I guess what is surprising is that after bashing Yost, the positive was still ignored, or better yet explained away as if it doesn't take place. Allam talked about things she is experiencing in her area, but what is happening in those 14 other, supposedly secure areas? Sure, where she is, is bad, and where Yost is, in his air-conditioned office, is not.

But what about those other areas? There are positives going on there AND also negatives, which should be reported. Unfortunately, we in journalism like to focus on the negatives because that's what engages our audience. I know that is a tired excuse, but it is a legitimate one.

Does Allam make good points? Of course, and Hoyt does, too. But to totally discredit Yost with the strong words that they used, especially the embarrassing words used by his colleague, Chuck Laszewski, is sad.

Those three have to remember, because Yost pointed it out in the beginning, that he was in the military and experienced things, which were misrepresented in his eyes more than once. When he sees it again, although this time from afar and through other's eyes, he is reminded of the one-sided reporting he experienced. I'm not saying it's true. I'm just asking are there positives that we ignore because our audience only likes to read about the bomb-killing, radical, freaks who have no value for human life? I think yes, because I have friends over there, too, who say so, and wonder the same thing Yost was saying: Why does the media ignore these stories? I've heard reports by FoxNews and others, but those are slanted, as well, only to the positive. It would be good for all media to try a little harder to tell both sides.

Brett Honeycutt
Sports Reporter
Charlotte Observer

***

Your column on Knight Ridder's reply to Yost is by far the most honest and straight-on article I have read on Iraq and what is happening today. Thank you -- keep the truth coming -- it is like we are so thirsty and very little water is available.

Karin Dicker

***

Re: KR and Yost. Powerful writing. Provocative story. Too bad our big national dailies don't have writers like you. There are some who will continue to drink the Kool-Aid (like the opinion writer in Minnesota), but their numbers are thinning, and in the end they will be marginalized and ostracized.

Sharon Andrews
Pembroke Pines, Florida

***

As a reporter I find it frustrating how the mainstream media is missing or not reporting some very basic elements of this Plame case. First, Rove was clearly trying to steer Matthew Cooper clear of pursuing a false story involving Valerie Plame's husband, who we learned later was a lie on his part. Second, Rove did not use her name at all in his email to Cooper. Third, Plame was well-known among the inner Washington political circle so it wasn't exactly a secret that she was associated with the CIA. And finally, she has not been a covert undercover CIA agent for the past nine years, making this whole witch hunt irrelevant.

Todd Neeley
Omaha, Nebraska

***

Since Scott McClellan keeps saying it is "inappropriate" to answer even the simplest of questions, I wonder if it would be "inappropriate" for the reporters to call him what he is... a damned liar who will go to Hell for his lies to the American people?

Rob Moitoza
U.S. Navy Veteran
Seattle, WA

***

I have a journalism degree. I don't use it anymore, much to the relief of others who do, but I do carry with me a notion of the value of the First Amendment protections given to the press.

What has happened to the profession? There is evidence this administration lied us into a war. The list could go on an on.

But I watch presidential news conferences, and the questions about these matters are so weak or not asked at all, that I am embarrassed for the members of the White House Press Corps.

Where are the people who fired questions at Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton? These people seem almost deferential.

Darryl Moen, one of my teachers, once said news was anything 'people wanted to know, or anything people needed to know.' The press is doing a great job with the first, covering such things at the Michael Jackson trial and Brad and Angelina, but it's doing a lousy job of the second.

Robert Gist
St. Louis, Mo.

***

Hannah Allam's reply (Pressing Issues column) to Yost's uninformed and pricelessly naive piece in the St. Paul paper says it all. Her brave reporting deserves applause. Yost's piece reads like it was written by an eight-year-old who just learned that America is #1 -- always has been, always will be. He should be ashamed, humiliated and, if there is any hope for him, humbled. We'll see.

Sheryl Larson