The war in Iraq rages on and America troops continue to make the ultimate sacrifice. In this milieu a multitude of reasons have forced The Chicago Tribune to forgo profiles of dead soldiers, causing the paper flak from all sides.
Tribune Public Editor Timothy J. McNulty recently addressed the issue after receiving a letter from the father of a U.S. soldier. "While the soldiers were from different geographic regions of the country; represented different races, religions and ethnic groups; and were of differing age, gender and marital status, they shared a common bond in that they made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I can't remember reading a single story without thinking to myself that this soldier was just an ordinary kid from an everyday walk of life," wrote the father, Robert Best.
Magnets, ribbons and bumper stickers abound on the cars of America, exclaiming "I Support Our Troops." But documenting fallen troops is a controversial one. In 2004, The Seattle Times printed photos taken by a contractor in Kuwait of flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers aboard a plane before they returned to the States, costing the woman her job – taking the photographs were in direct violation of Pentagon rules. Pundits chastised Ted Koppel for doing an entire show naming dead soldiers during "Nightline."
The Tribune, which had profiled dead soldiers since the beginning of the war, received criticism from both sides of the political aisle.
"Some complain that prominently displaying the stories and photos of dead soldiers--2,786 killed in Iraq, 280 in Afghanistan as of Thursday -- is an attempt to undermine the Bush administration," wrote McNulty of the conservative charge.
But liberals also saw a political agenda as well: "Others complain that not putting the number of dead soldiers and their obituaries/stories on the front page or in another prominent place in the newspaper is a sign of a pro-Bush administration bias and an effort to minimize the cost of the war in the American public's mind, " wrote McNulty.
Liberals and conservatives charges turned out to be off the mark, according to McNulty.
Two problems plagued the paper: space and time.
"But some time ago, the paper stopped trying to record the details of every soldier's death. Late in 2004 and into 2005, as the fighting in Iraq increased, the competition for space to cover the war news also increased. Soldier obituary/stories were often delayed and then they began to back up until they were weeks and even months behind, recalls foreign-national news editor Mark Jacob.
"The effort to track down and interview family and friends of soldiers from all over the country became overwhelming in terms of staff and space in the newspaper. Finally, Managing Editor James O'Shea decided to scale back and concentrate only on fallen soldiers from Illinois and the region," wrote McNulty.
What once would have been inconceivable – not given fallen soldiers due prominence – is relegated by age-old paper problems. Perhaps, this is a metaphor of where war has gone: to the back pages of American minds.
Anne Noyes @ October 28, 2006 - 2:00pm
Well said, Mike.
I agree that media coverage of American soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a political issue -- just as many other social and personal issues have been politicized for electoral gain.
I would argue that the debate over media coverage of dead soldiers began when the Pentagon banned dissemination of photographs of coffins containing dead soldiers. Perhaps others would counter that media depictions of these war-related personal tragedies could be manipulated to boost anti-war sentiment.
But now, four years into the American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, both those opposed to the war and those who defend the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to stoke the politicized nature of this debate. It continues to be a political issue because both sides continue to make it one.
Given this raging political debate, it's especially interesting that when The Chicago Tribune announced it was discontinuing the paper's profiles of dead soldiers, Tribune Public Editor Timothy J. McNulty cited a lack of space and staff resources relative to the increasing number of American casualties.
In a time when staff reductions and cost-cutting measures are seemingly endemic to the newspaper business, the Tribune's move is telling.
Throughout the US and the around the world, few stories trump the ongoing violence in the Middle East. The volatile instability of civil war-torn Iraq and a newly strengthened uprising in Afghanistan are affecting countries throughout that region. In the sensitive political climate following the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Western leaders reacted harshly to the triumph of Hamas in the last Palestinian elections, cutting off crucial economic aid that has lead to violent clashes between Hamas and political rival Fatah as resources have become increasingly scarce. And throughout Europe, simmering tensions have occasionally flared into violence as Islamic minorities and traditionally western majorities grapple with their cultural differences in countries like France, England, and The Netherlands.
Yet, a major national paper like The Chicago Tribune does not have the resources to cover the story as fully as possible.
Closer to home, regardless of red state/blue state cultural divisions in the US, sympathy for fallen soldiers and their grieving families is fairly universal. But those who have forfeited their lives in the course of their military service, are not honored, but instead largely ignored in the media.
The smaller, media-related tragedy, which underlies the much larger tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is purely economic. The bottom-line focus on increasing profit margins has lead many papers to cut staff and reduce the use of other resources. Now, when important, substantive reporting is most needed, American newspapers simply don't have the resources to cover the story.
»