Helicopter Journalism
Michael Massing has an amusing and trenchant critique of what he terms “David Ignatius’s Helicopter Journalism.”
What a delight it must be to be a columnist for a major American newspaper. When traveling to distant, war-torn lands, you can enlist America’s top generals to show you around. That’s what David Ignatius of The Washington Post did on Sunday. He was shown around Baghdad by no less a figure than Centcom commander David Petraeus. Or, rather, he was shown it from the air. The two flew over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter. The general pointed out all the signs of recovery below. “See, the houses are occupied again,” he said as they passed over a neighborhood that several years ago had been largely abandoned. He pointed to the schools, police stations, parks, markets, and a traffic jam, which, he said was “good to see.”
The whole thing is worth a read. The larger issue, of course, is the problematic relationship between journalists and high-powered sources.
26 Responses to “Helicopter Journalism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 28th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I’m sure Ignatius got an accurate depiction of what’s going on there. What motivation could Ignatius possibly have in bending or even breaking away from the truth? lol.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
In all fairness, flying over Iraq with generals and reporting on what you see and hear takes considerably more effort than sitting in your cubicle in DC and blogging about other people’s journalistic methods. Oh, sorry. You reported from Sweden that one time. I’m amazed you were brave enough to turn down the helicopter flight and actually walk through the rough streets of Stockholm.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
and I meant Patraeus. What motivation could Patraeus have in bending the truth etc.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
General Petraeus has been very, very quiet on the subject of Afghanistan despite the fact he has command responsibility over that fiasco too.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
To be fair, that is also how DC journalists cover health care reform.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Yep. Much better to sit at home with no sources than helicopter over Baghdad with high-powered sources.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
You can accurately judge other people’s journalism from a cubicle.
Unlike judging other people’s country from a helicopter.
Really, that was a deeply idiotic comment. You didn’t even aspire to anything higher than insulting Matt, sss, and you failed at that.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
There is value to the aerial view… IF you’ve seen the same areas previously. Otherwise, it’s like being flown around DC without hitting the streets. From 500ft, who’d know the difference between one side of Rock Creek or the other?
October 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
That’s not a Black Hawk. That’s an Apache.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It’s still a helicopter though!
October 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
If journalists are going to insist that they work in the news business, then as a consumer I can refuse to buy or patronize such shitty lackluster efforts as flying over Iraq in a helicopter and quoting a general who already makes public statements and interviews on what he says is going on below.
That’s great for Ignatius to have such an opportunity, but I fail to see how it convinces me to buy his employer’s product.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It’s still a helicopter though!
heh
The “trenchant” writer Michael Massing says:
During the early phase of the Vietnam War, many American columnists went on similar ride-alongs with generals; subsequent events made their rosy accounts seem disconnected from reality. In Ignatius’s case, we don’t have to wait for history.
Evidently we’re in the late phases of the Iraq War, since we’re pulling out. So it isn’t analogous. And Ignatius’s case isn’t that rosy. He reports on the bombing.
He also writes:
Maybe in the Palestinian territories, but that’s it. In Iran, the Supreme Leader will be running the country no matter who wins. Pseudo’s Saddam would have had this critical Iraqi tortured and shot. No loyalty!
CJR fail.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The question is, did he get to see kites flying?
Some of you may remember that a filmmaker was accused of pro-Saddam Hussein tendencies for pointing out that Iraq was not a nightmarish hellhole under the guy Bush wanted to murder using thousands of soldiers. What Petraeus showed Ignatius is hardly different. Yet Al finds it incredible that someone would criticize the propaganda of Petraeus.
One difference? Listening to that crazy filmmaker would have saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and, frankly, ensured a lot more kites flew over Baghdad between then and now.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
joe from lowell:
I’m actually a big fan of Matt’s (I’m not a troll like Al), but this post kind of pissed me off. How often has he even been on the same continent as the places he talks about? I just think that before Matt criticizes another journalist for his methods of obtaining information, he should consider just how many serious risks he has ever taken to get a story.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I think Robert Fisk often used the term “hotel journalism,” in which the journalists would mainly remain at the nice hotels in the capitals, go have breakfast or whatever and meet with government officials to get an official view. Meanwhile he and the local journalists are out on the streets or out investigating to see what’s actually happening.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Ah look at that, noted hater of Iraqis – poptarts – pops up just to claim that political repression was so bad that the only thing that could have been done was to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
How’s the hand washing going poptarts? What is it you use to clean off all that blood?
October 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
(I’m not a troll like Al)
Any criticism at all is trolling.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Any criticism at all is trolling
You’re right, it was an unnecessary jab. Withdrawn. Amazingly, we seem to be making the same point in this case. Not all information can be obtained through a Google search or press conference transcript.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“Not as Stupid as Will Allen”
How’s the hand washing going poptarts? What is it you use to clean off all that blood?
Where we disagree is that you blame me for the horrible bombing Massing and Ignatius discuss. If that psychopathic genocidal Saddam Hussein dictator was never toppled, in your mind then that bombing never would have happened. Saddam ran a tight ship, just like American Republicans. Just ask the Kurds.
Whereas I blame the guys who did the bombing.
Massing mentions the other Post reporter who writes:
Another point where Massing’s analogy breaks down. During the “early phases” of the Vietnam War, the Post wouldn’t have been reporting that.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Pastry McTaintlapper doesn’t like Michael Massing because he was one of the first journalists to set out how the big papers were conned on Iraq — the beginning of the process that now leaves librulhawks looking like monstrous discredited fools.
All he has left is the tang of Hitchens’ perineal musk.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
sss,
I think your criticism is misplaced. Matt doesn’t hold forth on “the real situation in Iraq” like some bloggers do. He doesn’t claim to be an expert on warfare, or have any special insight into Iraq.
Ignatius does, and he makes that claim based on things like flyovers.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“See, the houses are occupied again,” he said as they passed over a neighborhood that several years ago had been largely abandoned.
Would it be overly cynical to hope for a similar recovery in some areas of the United States? (Yes, I know the reasons for abandonment are different.)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
poptarts denies any responsibility for loosing the bombers on the population. Apparently they just appeared out of nowhere in some sort of immaculate conception.
He also seems to imagine that the only people creating those dead bodies were the official “bad guys.”
It turns out that’s simply not true. And, even if it were, the United States, as an occupying power, had the responsibility to preserve order. It failed. That failure was predictable, and predicted.
poptarts simply washes his hands of the bloody debacle he helped cause because he is an immoral asshole who doesn’t care about the suffering of the Iraqi people.
It turns out that the five years of Saddam’s rule preceding Bush’s assault on the Iraqi people saw considerably less violent death than the five years after. Hm…I wonder if there is anything that might have caused an uptick in violence? I wonder if there was anything that might have caused a decline in needed medical care? Anything that might have caused a decline in life-saving infrastructure?
Nah, I know poptarts would be the first to admit it if the American occupation had any bad side effects.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:22 am
poptarts denies any responsibility for loosing the bombers on the population. Apparently they just appeared out of nowhere in some sort of immaculate conception
Dammit, we’re focused on the future, not on rehashing past mistakes. Poptarts has already said he blames those horrible guys who dropped those horrible bombs. The war plan called for dropping roses, who could have possibly predicted that some bad apples would drop bombs instead? We’d take away their medals and try them for war crimes if we weren’t so focused on the future.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am
They’ll greet us a liberators!
October 29th, 2009 at 10:25 am
NASAWA:
It turns out that’s simply not true. And, even if it were, the United States, as an occupying power, had the responsibility to preserve order. It failed. That failure was predictable, and predicted.
And yet you want us out so they Iraqis can kill each other off. Make up your mind, do you want us to preserve order or leave the sinking ship?
Michael Massing because he was one of the first journalists to set out how the big papers were conned on Iraq — the beginning of the process that now leaves librulhawks looking like monstrous discredited fools.
How so? No where does Massing discuss Saddam’s track record apparently because you and he believe Saddam wasn’t that bad.