Why TV Beat Newspapers in War Coverage

By: Greg Mitchell Opinion

The Readership Institute revealed Tuesday that a new study shows that Americans preferred getting their news about the war on Iraq from TV and cable networks, not from newspapers, by an overwhelming margin. While not exactly shocking, this had to disappoint newspapers that spent a fair share of money, and a tremendous amount of resources and newsprint, on covering the conflict.

Explanations and theories are sure to come, with most no doubt centering on the notion of "The Made-for-TV War" or "The First Reality TV War" or even "The Return of the Golden Age of the Mini-series." Sure, it was hard for newspapers to compete with live camera coverage from the desert and downtown Baghdad, though those images were usually empty and devoid of context.

I prefer to believe that newspapers suffered because, as Mark Twain wrote, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" -- and newspapers, in this case, wore the shoes. Herewith my own Top 10 list of why TV outpolled newspapers in war coverage:

1. Newspapers, in the main, refused to put American flags at the top of their front pages every day, thereby refusing to stand up for America, salute, and support our troops like some of our brave, fighting cable networks.

2. Newspapers did not have a "ticker" or "crawl" that could simplify complex subjects for their readers into misleading if comforting little nuggets that could always be revised or replaced if proven wrong, which they often were.

3. Newspapers needed a better haircut, as usual.

4. Newspapers entered the fight at a disadvantage, since at least half of the major papers in editorials (as documented by E&P surveys) raised profound questions about the motives for this war, and the true Iraqi threat, before it started. Many Americans probably held this against them, once the bullets started flying. Of course, these editorials started to look fairly prescient, once the fighting stopped.

5. Newspapers did not hire retired generals. Apparently Americans are still impressed by stars and stripes, even if many of the generals now work for defense contractors and plugged their products on the air.

6. Newspapers wouldn't or couldn't make nearly as many errors as TV, and the public often preferred the untruths. They wanted Saddam to be dead on opening night, just like TV was suggesting, and resented newspapers for suggesting he might still be alive. Most people probably still believe barrels of poisons found weeks ago tested positive as weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as initially reported on TV, because it precludes their needing to think more deeply about whether the White House hyped the WMD threat merely as an excuse to GRS (get rid of Saddam).

7. Newspapers needed more sand in their eyes and clothes, just to prove they were really at the front lines and in danger, even if the TV embeds often did little more than cheerlead as they crossed the desert.

8. When newspapers occasionally showed pictures most Americans didn't want to see -- of Iraqi civilian casualties -- they let them speak for themselves rather than soft-pedal the images by suggesting they were alleged casualties or alleged civilians (or both), and merely propaganda aimed at whipping up Arab hatred of America.

9. Newspapers occasionally presented dissenting views on the conflict, and not merely for the express purpose of suggesting that such views were unpatriotic, which had become a popular American opinion, thanks to the TV networks, even before the epochal Dixie Chicks scandal.

10. Newspapers did not use the word "we" to describe who was actually fighting the war, thereby failing to share in the glory when we won, unlike some of the embedded TV stars.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.