Last modified: Thursday, January 8, 2009 2:06 PM CST News and war must still go on as usual by warren byrd CAMP VICTORY, BAGHDAD, Iraq — I realize that life goes on back in the states for many U.S. citizens as American soldiers continue to fight in Iraq. Soldiers cannot and do not expect Americans to spend every waking minute thinking about the war and what they must endure 24 hours a day. Human brains don’t work that way. People have other business to tend to — work, eat out, go to ballgames, visit friends, etc. But an article I read the other day in The New York Times disturbed me, and, I guess, left me somewhat disheartened. It was another angle on the “Americans are tired of the war in Iraq” mindset. That phrase does rankle me. Soldiers on the ground here, by the way, don’t lay awake at night on the tops of and inside their trucks, Humvees, war-torn buildings and anyplace else they find a spot to rest contemplating how it is that folks in the U.S. are growing tired of and hearing about the war. Again, business to tend to — fighting the bad guys, trying to rebuild a nation, pitch the idea of freedom and democracy. As stated in last week’s column, political persuasions are being shelved here, and the intent is not to pick a side in the battle over whether the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq. I’ll let the political pundits and pinheads, barber shop quarterbacks and liberal and conservative zealots argue that. Simply, I just wonder how it can be that major media outlets have determined — for themselves and for you — that the war in Iraq is now old news, and believe they must now high-tail it to Afghanistan, where they know that “you” will want them to be. This, in a nutshell, was the premise to the article I read in The Times. The mission in Iraq is still relevant, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told troops here recently. “The enemies of a stable and self-governing Iraq are resilient, they are lethal, and they are always looking to reverse the gains of the last year and a half,” Gates said. “Iraq has been a long and hard fight, and to be sure the mission is not over, though its parameters and focus will change.” The Iraq war, in essence, is vanishing almost as fast as Claude Raines in the “Invisible Man” movies (dating myself on this one). The war here does not garner near as much of the newspaper or TV marketplace it once did. Heck, local TV stations aren’t even posting the “holiday greetings messages” from deployed soldiers on their Web sites as prominently — if at all — as they were when the war here was hot news. The Times article quotes one source as saying that the war has lasted longer than many news organizations’ “ability or appetite to cover it.” Major TV networks, the article goes on, say decisions to decrease their presence and coverage of the war in Iraq was made because the conflict here has shifted from “a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and violence.” Too, audience interest, they say, does not merit as much coverage. Huh? Yes, the old media tenet that “blood leads” is alive and well. The article reveals another disturbing fact: newscasts at NBC, ABC and CBS devoted just 423 minutes to covering the war in Iraq in 2008, compared with 1,888 minutes in 2007. I’ll have to trust the Times reporter, who quoted a reliable source, that those stats are accurate. In fact, in my job here working as a public affairs guy, I have noticed a decline in media interest, local and national. I imagine some major media reps out there might get a bit huffy about my attack on their diminishing war coverage and poor judgment in redefining news trends, and that’s fine. I’ll go toe-to-toe with anyone in my career field over this — for as long as a good board game of Risk can sometimes take — and challenge them to put me in my place. I return this summer — meet you at Mr. Masons (or perhaps the Flying Saucer) and we will do battle. Until I shed my uniform and its “officialness,” (ouch, that’s not a word), though, I won’t traverse the dangerous path of dissecting what I believe our media are evolving into. I am qualified to do that, having served a lifetime as a print journalist and constantly studied media trends. And, yawn yawn, I have conducted media studies, taught college journalism and worked for and with media from around the world. That’s the short of my qualifications, anyway. So, back to my disenchantment with the Times article. One argument being tossed about by national networks and print outlets is that, in these tough economic times, it’s simply impossible to justify pumping too much money into covering the war in Iraq. (Yes, again, there is still a war going on here. Are we winning? I get asked that a bunch. My answer: depends on your definition of winning. We have made great strides in some areas, but the job isn’t finished.) But how can that argument wash? Even over here, with limited television offerings, I see that the networks trip over themselves to cover the nightly antics of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, the Jennifer-Brad-Angelina-saga, etc., and are increasingly churning out “reality” shows that are, in my mind, dumbing America. The print media outlets, to their credit, still cover and write about the news, write the facts, etc., but even some of the big boys are bowing out, closing up shop in Iraq and sending home their correspondents and reporters. Quoting a source in the Times article, “I don’t want to see the same old pictures of soldiers kicking down doors.” I can tell you with authority that soldiers are doing much more than that over here. It might be boring TV to see soldiers build schools and otherwise try to strengthen the country’s infrastructure, or watch soldiers perform some stellar medical work and save lives — Iraqi and U.S. Some of you might be crying foul on my stance here — “he’s in the Army, he’s biased.” Yep, and so what? I’m also a media professional and, more importantly, a U.S. citizen, who, by the by, media must answer to. I could go on here, but the point is — and I can tell you because I do this to earn my keep here — soldiers are fighting, dying, doing good deeds, making heroic efforts and basically busting butt, for the most part, to complete their missions here. Am I an idealist, as some have labeled me? Perhaps I’m a bit guilty as charged, but I do realize wrongs exist everywhere, and the government and military are not perfect. The point here is, compare our military’s track record to any in the world, any category, and we win, even with the rare bad apple. While missteps have occurred along the way, the intent for soldiers, at least, is to do our jobs and do it well. And again, let’s keep political tendencies off the table in this discussion. I realize that, as a public affairs guy here, it’s my mission to tell the good stories about our soldiers. But you must understand this is not the intent. The aim is not to espouse the positive command messages while wearing a PA hat. Heck, if more reporters decided to embed here with units, daily, go on more missions, they would see what I already know. It might not be terribly exciting, but it is news. I’m a newsman, and I know. I keep recalling some episodes when I was at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Media streamed in and out for the first few months the detainee camp was open, and then trailed off, because, as they put it, “there isn’t any news here.” Hogwash. My argument was, hey, look around. News is happening all over the place. It’s ALL good stuff, folks. Here, like at GITMO, I see a story every time I look into a soldier’s eyes, see them talking or watch them work. But it isn’t always bombs detonating, people dying, suffering and crying, or bloodshed and mayhem. It is simply soldiers doing their jobs the best they can, faithfully, undeterred and unconcerned, really, about how much media play they get. Army Sgt. Maj. Warren Byrd is deployed to Camp Victory, Iraq, and is serving as a public affairs specialist. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or the U.S. government.