I hope you’ll check back in if you hear from Pew – I bet you will, eventually.

I haven’t looked inside the report yet so there’s a good chance that Pew defines that somewhere in there. At least, I would hope so. But then, that kind of definition should accompany the graphic, yes?

Thanks for pointing it out.

Now – in addition to my blog post title being wrong and you letting me know, has this prompted you to contact Pew or any other outlet that has similarly characterized the findings? I’ve done that in the past too – written LTRs when I think the headlines have been bogus.

[O]ne question that has hovered over the coverage from the beginning of the war was whether journalists have been too negative in their assessments of the situation in Iraq. [...] Most [survey respondents] (70%) believe their coverage overall has been accurate picture of what is happening here. About one-in-six (15%) believe the coverage makes the situation look better than it is. Hardly any (3%) believe it focuses on the negative.

To me, two things about this paragraph are notable. (Why they are notable will become clear in a moment.)
1) The journalists did not here (or elsewhere in the report) express opinions about the American public’s perceptions of Iraq. (Look at the survey questions; there are none about this topic.)
2) Only 15% of surveyed journalists “believe the coverage makes the situation look better than it is.”

Now, look at two sentences in the first paragraph of the report (page 1):

[Journalists reporting from Iraq] do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq.

What in the survey provides support for the second sentence? The journalists expressed no opinions about the perceptions of the American public. (Page 21 of the report does discuss a Pew survey of American public opinion, but that is completely separate from this survey of journalists.)

And what about the use of “many,” presumably to refer to the 15% who “believe the coverage makes the situation look better than it is?” Is “many” a misleading descriptor for a 15% minority?

I would suggest that the sentiments of the second sentence (“many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived”) reflect the opinions of whomever wrote the report, and are not based on the survey of journalists. (For those who disagree, please identify the relevant survey question(s).) This, in turn, led to what I consider an inaccurate title for the original blog post: “Pew survey: journalists say Iraq situation worse than Americans perceive.”

Well. I would say what reporters actually on scene KNOW and what is actually being reported through the filter to the American public are actually two different things. Sander Vanocur often complained that what reporters were sending from Vietnam didn’t square with what the American people were allowed to hear and it seems the same process is at work here and not just on Fox news.

I also find it fascinating that the most unreported story, far and away, is the impact of what we have done to Iraq on the Iraqi people. Probably the biggest reason you don’t hear about it is that news editors back in the states don’t want those stories – they think Americans don’t care about Iraqis and/or it wouldn’t square with the national aims of the ‘democracy’ we’re supposedly giving to the Iraqi people (and giving them good and hard as it were). So the suffering of average Iraqis goes unreported, save for the British and foreign press and the Internet.

It all adds up to another bright shining moment for American ‘journalism.’