Reporter's Notebook

GIs in the media panel

Tweet

UPDATE: Full audio now available.

From left: Moderator Andi Hurley of SpouseBuzz.com; Matt Burden of blackfive.net; Army Maj. Chuck Ziegenfuss of tcoverride.blogspot.com; and his wife Karen Ziegenfuss, who writes for Chuck’s blog and SpouseBuzz.

Following the “GIs in the media” discussion panel, I’d like to present this open memo to my compatriots in the mainstream media. The panelists offered up the following recommendations for covering the military, the wars and troops in general:

START LOOKING BEYOND THE “TRAGIC:” Abu Ghraib was terrible and newsworthy, Burden said. But the topic continues to be covered obsessively, while Medal of Honor winners get a few column inches. Chuck and Burden agreed that there are incredible stories coming out of every battle and every deployment that will get just as much public interest as the obvious storylines, e.g., Jessica Lynch.

SOLDIERS ARE NOT “TRAGICALLY FLAWED:” Chuck was adamant on this point. Soldiers with deep moral quandaries make great TV, but don’t make the mistake of trying to paint real-life service members in that way.

SPOUSES ARE NOT “LEFT BEHIND” ON DEPLOYMENTS: As Karen put it, “I was not left behind, my husband was doing his job. … When I go to work every day, am I leaving my children behind? No, I’m doing my job.”

CHECK THE NUMBERS: Chuck related a story in which a VBIED blew up close enough to his base that it blew open the door of his hooch. It killed one victim, a bodyguard for a visiting Iraqi governor. Chuck checked out the situation, then went over to the dining facility, where CNN was reporting 24 deaths from the incident. Al Jazeera may have obvious bias, but at least they’re always accurate, Chuck said.

BLOGGERS ARE HERE TO HELP: Burden said he frequently sends out notices to reporters that he can help arrange sources for them when he finds a great, unknown story. But they rarely take interest, he said.
Worse yet, Burden and Chuck both described being “set up” by TV and print reporters who lure them into interviews based on one angle, then drop a hyper-controversial question and try to foment outrage. They do not appreciate that.