International talks begin, but where are the news reports?

Talks Begin On Way Forward In Afghanistan

For this week’s posting, I tried to find a recent article from a U.S media source that framed the fight in Afghanistan in its broadest international and historical sense. This was for two reasons: in order to contrast with last week’s entry, which focused on a single U.S. military officer’s experience, and to determine the extent to which a U.S. media outlet is able to describe the deeper historical aspects which we read about in In The Graveyard of Empires.

In searching for an article about the war in Afghanistan, one that fit with the above description or not, I was struck by how little recent information was available on the subject. Searching through various media archives, I saw a pattern emerging: since the weeks leading up to and directly after President Obama’s December 1st announcement that the U.S. would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the number of stories has dropped significantly, a pattern which I saw reflected in other U.S. news sources as well. Rather, other domestic and international stories seem to have commanded the most attention: the ongoing crisis in Haiti, the recent State of the Union address, and the national deficit. While this is a mere observation and is not backed by any empirical data, it was still surprising that the war in Afghanistan received so little attention in the media. It seemed to me that in the free market of ideas, Afghanistan was losing ground to other more prominent issues.

The NPR report that I chose to examine centers on the international conference on Afghanistan, which was held in London last Thursday between the foreign ministers of NATO countries along with leaders of Japan, China and India. Framed as a conversation between Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and correspondent Renee Montagne, the report does a fair job discussing the key issues to be addressed at the conference as well as likely roadblocks.

At the start of the dialogue, Montagne notes that the last time a meeting of such size and scope was held was more than eight years ago in December of 2001, after the Taliban had been driven out of Afghanistan. She also mentions that at this last meeting, leaders in attendance were responsible for “more or less anointing” Hamid Karzai as president, and for “divvying up the various jobs of rebuilding Afghanistan’s broken institutions” between various foreign partners – choices which have unquestionably contributed to the situation which Afghanistan finds itself today. Despite the brevity of the interview (slightly more than four minutes), I was pleased that Montagne attempted to place the conference within a relevant yet concise historical context.

Another key issue raised by the report is President Karzai’s strategy of “reaching out” to “lower level [Taliban] fighters and commanders,” a strategy which has attracted support from U.S. and NATO leaders as well. In Montagne’s description, we see an apparent avoidance of more context-laden terms such as terrorist and insurgent. When such words are used within the report, they are identified as terminology used by other individuals and institutions: “[McChrystal’s] own counter-insurgency strategy” and the qualification of the word “unreconcilable.” Montagne’s avoidance of more politically charged language creates in the piece a more restrained and “objective” tone (though the absolute lack of subjectivity is highly questionable).

Overall, the report did a fair job presenting the information in a relevant and concise manner, which has to some extent become the hallmark of NPR reporting. Also of importance is the fact that the report was created for radio broadcast, which imposes natural constraints on the length and the level of detail of any given story. In summary, I credit the report with high marks for its historical context and its inclusion of perspectives from leaders outside the U.S., as well as its avoidance of politically charged terminology. However, it was a very short report that was unable to go into any significant depth, and I would encourage NPR and other media outlets to increase the amount of stories devoted to Afghanistan, despite the prominence of other domestic and international concerns.

Where Was This Reporter? A Times story leaves more questions than answers

"Foot on a Bomb, A Marine Defies a Taliban Trap."

That was the headline on a story that was No. 2 on the New York Times email service that sends stories to my inbox. On the Times website, it was less prominently displayed, but the headline would have grabbed the attention of readers. There was something about the story's first paragraph that read like a novel and drew me in:

SHOSHARAK, Afghanistan--If luck is the battlefield's final arbiter--the wild card that can trump, fitness, training, teamwork, equipment, character and skill--then Lance Cpl. Ryan T. Mathison experienced its purest and most welcome form." Heminway-esque in its tightness and precision. But this is journalism, not a novel.

The story continues in the same vein. There is heavy use of novel-writing forms and words. The tension of the young man stepping on the bomb and stopping. The sharp quotes that you can almost hear an actor saying in next year's dramatization of this story on cable television: "Goddamn Matty man," says a radio operator. "Lucky son of a bitch."

And that's when it struck me. I couldn't figure out where the journalist is in this story. Did he see this happen--a young Marine steps on a bomb--called an I.E.D by the military and now an often-used term by the media as well--and it doesn't detonate? Did he hear the radio operator say that--and what did he leave out. Do people really talk like this? Sharp quick sentences that drive us back to the main point of the story--this was one lucky Marine.

Was Chivers embedded with these troops and was this what he saw on a patrol? Or did he hear about the story later and have them recreate it for him? What are the rules of engagement for this reporter? Does he follow the embedding rules laid out by the Obama Administration? The link gives you insight into what the administration is doing to control images out of Afghanistan. I'll write more in another post about the military's rules for embedded soldiers. But here is a link to Military Reporters and Editors for more information.

Nowhere in the story does the writer describe how he came to find out about the story--whether he saw it or it was retold to him. Why is this important? As a reader, I can only assume that the reporter is there on the ground. As a journalist, I believe in explaining where I am in a story without overtly inserting myself into the story to become a character--which then makes this something other than straightforward journalism--veering toward reportage.

The quotes he uses: were they words he heard with his own ears and the events he describes were they seen with his own eyes? I assume, but I don't know this for certain. One sentence would solve this issue and give readers a better sense of how the reporter came to the story. That sentence: The journalist was embedded with Marines and saw this event happen on a dawn patrol.

I had hoped to gain more insight into the story by reading Chivers' blog post, but he doesn't discuss the story specifically. Chivers may assume that his readers know that this is a first-hand account. I asked him in a comment on his blog. We'll see if he answers me.

Instead I found more loaded phrases and opinion-based writing as Chivers' describes a military base that has been set up in what was to be a druglord's "mansion." To describe the house's opulence he writes: "Think Tony Montana decorates for jihad." Another loaded word "jihad," without explanation or context as to what the word means. But I get the drift. Just as I get the drift from the "lucky" Marine story. Here is a feel-good piece about Marines doing battle against an unseen enemy. (No Afghans are quoted in the story and there is no discussion of what the situation is like in Shosharak.) Lurking behind every dusty hut is the Taliban. They aren't "honorable" fighters because they set these nasty bombs days in advance and then head for the hills.

I'll end with this question: what do we mean by words and phrases such as insurgents and I.E.Ds? Are these words that have been vetted by Times editors and deemed acceptable? Or are these words that are used by the military and are picked up by the media unconsciously. What do the words mean to you?

British Journalist Killed in Afghanistan

Afghanistan becomes deadly for journalists yet again 2010. British journalist Rupert Hamer is killed. Read the Guardian's article on his death here.

A Year in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

An interesting look at the past year in Afghanistan and Iraq, complete with a good multimedia package of graphics. Click here for the New York Times Story

What Afghans Really Think

Mother Jones writer and University of Michigan alum Andy Kroll takes a look at a recent poll of several thousands of Afghans.
Check out the link here.