Editors strive to offer "all layers" of Iraq war

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld aren't the only ones frustrated with news coverage of the Iraq war. So are some of us at The Seattle Times.

As the war entered its fourth year, the president, vice president and secretary of defense all voiced criticism of how the war is portrayed back home. For example, at his news conference last week, Bush said that "for every act of violence, there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news." Cheney and Rumsfeld both said that media coverage presents a distorted picture of what is happening in Iraq, with too much emphasis on the violence and not enough on signs of progress. All three administration leaders seemed to be making the case that the war's rising unpopularity is driven, at least in part, by how it is being reported.

"We feel a frustration at times, too," said Mike Stanton, executive news editor. "We have a sense that a lot more is happening than we are able to report, and I don't like it."

His statement may well enrage readers who support the war, as well as those who oppose it. The former could see it as an admission of liberal or anti-administration bias, the latter as an attempt to placate conservatives. It is neither.

Stanton said he believes the journalists in Iraq are striving against impossible circumstances to do the best job possible. "I've got a pretty good nose for bias, and I just don't see it," said the veteran editor.

"You'd have to be Pollyanna to create an impression that everything is going well over there," he said. But he accepts that there are positive things happening that aren't being reported.

We hear a lot from parents of soldiers who say their sons and daughters send e-mails talking about the good work they are doing in helping restore stability in Iraq. We also hear similar comments from aid workers.

"I have no reason to think those stories aren't true. We just don't have a lot of access to them," Stanton said. He has instructed wire editors at The Times to look for and publish stories that provide more balance to the overall coverage, including on the front page.

The Times doesn't have reporters on the ground in Iraq, so we rely on an array of wire services. Unfortunately, the number of American journalists in Iraq is shrinking and their mobility is increasingly limited. Theirs is an increasingly dangerous assignment.

A group called Reporters Without Borders issued a report last week that said 86 journalists and media assistants (technicians, drivers, interpreters, bodyguards, etc.) have been killed in Iraq from March 20, 2003, to March 20, 2006.

"It's incredibly dangerous," said Leon Espinoza, Times news editor. "This is a complicated war, and we have tried to cover all of the layers of it."

We do that, he said, by using a variety of wire sources and weighing them against one another. "We don't come at this with an agenda or point of view. We're trying to present the most accurate picture in the moment."

The Times editor most directly involved in the daily handling of wire coverage is David Birdwell, nation / world editor. "We look for stories that some would perceive as positive, and we have run those stories. There aren't a lot of them out there.

"People can blame us for not printing them, but if they're not there to be printed ... ," he said, leaving the sentence unfinished.

Birdwell pointed out that stories about violence or problems typically include other views, including those of the military and administration. He said he thinks that coverage matches the circumstances on the ground, to the extent that reporters can determine it.

Espinoza added, "We're looking to present a balanced, accurate picture." He and Birdwell argued that "balanced" coverage isn't appropriate if the reality isn't balanced. "If the war were going better, we would report that," Espinoza said.

The editors cited last Sunday's package on the status of the war as an example of reporting that strives to be neutral. It included an article about U.S. troop morale holding steady and Associated Press charts showing "Iraq by the numbers."

The charts included statistics about electricity generation, crude-oil production, troop strength, insurgent attacks and funds for relief and reconstruction. At the risk of sounding like Rumsfeld, the numbers are what they are.

But that won't stop people from arguing about them, which is another frustration. Strident advocacy for and against the war creates the context in which readers evaluate coverage. Many presume a political motivation on our part that simply doesn't exist.

"We have to be careful not to be part of the political spin on either side," Espinoza said.

For Stanton, the important point for our editors to remember is that coverage of the war isn't a question of either / or: Either we report the bad things that are happening or we report the good.

Our aim should be to present an honest report that is as complete as possible.

Inside The Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists