Now that they are back stateside getting treatment, ABC’s injured journalists may recede from the hour-to-
hour news bulletins. Time to reflect on what their experience says about current war coverage in general.
This week’s news of serious injuries suffered by ABC anchor-reporter Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt reflects an unhappy reality about the news business.
Television is the American public’s leading source for news about Iraq. The Woodruff incident underscores how, in the long term, we are being poorly served by the medium.
Combat in Iraq has been largely relegated to secondary news stories in local papers and newscasts in recent weeks and months. Until an Osama bin Laden audiotape surfaced late last month, the top stories concerned the first anniversary of the Indonesian tsunami, the West Virginia coal mining accident, Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings and Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath.
According to the Tyndall Report, which tracks the network evening news programs, Iraq combat accounted for only eight minutes of coverage during the Jan. 16-20 nightly newscasts. That matches the eight minutes spent on New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s promise that “This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.”
In June, Iraq combat was getting 42 minutes in a week.
Has the public’s appetite for news of the ground war waned? Or is the problem the sameness of the ongoing story, its dangers and inaccessibility?
After weeks of drifting from the subject of U.S.-led fighting in Iraq, the story became the top priority on Sunday when the ABC journalists were attacked.
Suddenly, there was news from the front, news with a face.
The New York Times, on its front page, observed that Woodruff’s injuries could have serious adverse effects on ABC’s ratings. The war – the one with guns and roadside bombs – seemed to take a back seat to the war over Nielsen ratings.
At the same time, the story reflected an aspect of our celebrity-driven culture. The constant chronicle of American casualties is buried in the back pages of newspapers, read on the air at the end of the week. Nameless Iraqis die every day, subject to only a running tally in American media. (Whatever happened to the Iraqi soldier wounded in the attack with Woodruff?) But celebrity injuries merit intense coverage. Nevermind that Woodruff is hardly a household name like his predecessor, Peter Jennings.
Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America” lamented the “agony” Woodruff’s family is enduring. Rounding out the emotional moments, ABC News filed related reports about American troops encountering IEDs, improvised explosive devices, and military families dealing with loss.
A familiar dilemma kicked in: How much should the media turn the spotlight on itself?
ABC spent nearly as much time on get-well notes and e- mailed prayers as on what happened. To check Woodruff’s medical status you needed to look anywhere but ABC.
On NBC’s “Today,” Tom Brokaw, a Woodruff family friend, said doctors in Germany had removed part of Wood-
ruff’s skull to relieve swelling in his brain. The New York Times reported on his three hours of surgery, the multiple broken bones and bomb fragments in his neck and back. ABC News contented itself with doctors’ reports that he was “responding well to treatment.” Onward to the latest from brother Dave Woodruff, who has been amazingly obliging to ABC’s cameras.
True, viewers gain a point of entry when a familiar correspondent travels to a war zone as an embedded reporter, as Ted Koppel did last year. That sort of coverage is what Hollywood calls “relatable.” But does a celebrity victim alter the focus?
It’s a no-win situation, according to journalism ethicists. Should the media maintain a curtain of privacy not afforded others, or single out one of their own for special coverage? There’s no right answer.
Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism said, “If Katie Couric’s husband gets colon cancer, she becomes more aware of the danger of that disease and uses her TV presence to educate people. I don’t know how terrible that is. It’s part of how journalism works.
“The question for ABC is how do you cover this? Does it become self-referential or do you try to explore the situation for noncombatants generally?”
Rosenstiel is convinced we’ll know when it’s excessive. “When you see coverage and you’re not learning anything and it’s just publicity for a TV network and it’s maudlin,” he said, “that’s a tip-off we’ve gone too far.”
In wartime, he cautions, it’s difficult to get a fair picture day-to-day, particularly when journalists lack freedom of movement.
“This notion of how to do fair coverage in Iraq is very complicated. Support for war in Iraq has diminished from a year ago. Typically the tendency is for the press to play to public attitudes. If people are skeptical, the media will do more stories to reinforce that skepticism.”
The balance will fall somewhere between maudlin and skeptical.
Meanwhile, CNN succinctly put the tragedy in perspective: “Woodruff, 44, and Vogt, 46, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base about 4:30 p.m. along with 28 other patients, only 13 of whom walked off the plane.”
TV critic Joanne Ostrow can be reached at 303-820-1830 or jostrow@denverpost.com.
