Tickets are purchased, gear is tested (mostly), packing is commencing and everything is coming together. I've not posted much these past few days because of the overwhelming number of loose ends to tie up. Plus, at the moment, I don't really know any more than what's on CNN et al. What's the point of regurgitating? Starting this week however, the real purpose of Back to Iraq comes into view, as this becomes a much more heavily reported site instead of one based on analysis and commentary. (That will still be there, but in much smaller portions.)
I've been doing a fair number of interviews, too, as various media members want to know my story. Often they ask me why I'm doing this, what do I expect or hope to get out of this, am I crazy, etc. Well, I'm probably crazy, yes, but what I'm hoping to get out of this is some respect for the Web (and blogs) as a serious medium for independents. To all the journalism professors who say blogs aren't "real" journalism, I say, "I don't see you getting out of your tenured chair and putting your butt in the middle of Kurdistan to report on what's happening." To those who say, "You've got no editor," I reply, "My readers are my editors." To those who complain, "You're biased, you offer nothing but op-eds," I reply, "I am biased, but at least you know where I'm coming from. And just wait until next week when my butt is in Kurdistan."
There have been a couple of stories of journalism being pulled away from its mission by corporate masters. While these are no means the rule, they are troubling.
- Kevin Sites was shut down. While I wasn't always impressed with his work, he did take some good photographs. CNN's decision to shut him down is puzzling, considering he was saying nothing that would annoy his employers.
- The BBC's War Diaries, while interesting, seem a bit like an afterthought. And no doubt they are. The BBC reporters work hard.
- And finally, Paul Krugman has reported in his column that Clear Channel, operator of approximately 1,225 radio stations, 39 television stations and which has equity interest in more than 240 radio stations, has been organizing pro-war rallies around the country.
As Krugman says,
the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.
It should also be noted that Clear Channel is a major donor to the Republican party. Since 1997, the chairman and CEO, Lowry Mays, according to FEC records, has personally given $11,250, almost all to Republican candidates. (The exception is Rep. Charles Gonzales of the 20th District.)
Krugman's point is partially that Clear Channel is doing a favor for George W. Bush, but his main point is that major corporations -- including media companies -- are merging with the government "into one big 'us.'" The danger of this should be obvious.
Anyway, there's so much going on now. It's impossible to know the whole story of this war. But that's OK, I've come to realize. It's more important to tell a few stories of the war rather than the story of the war. That will have to be written later. And when the narrative is told, the media will have major role -- mainstream, freelance and independent alike. And perhaps someone will look back and say, "The blogosphere stepped up to the plate. With commentary and analysis, its members provided a tonic for much of the mainstream media's excesses. Others provided a meta-analysis, providing their readers with as much of a bird's eye view of the coverage as possible. And for the first time, they sent one of their own to war."
I’ll be interested to see if your journey leads to blogs being taken more seriously as a medium for journalism. I think the medium offers important opportunities for reporters to “file” up-to-the-minute reports.
Why wouldn’t that be considered journalism? Perhaps it is a bit editorial in nature, but heck, isn’t a lot of news these days? The agenda-setting issue is certainly alive and well, particularly during the days of war when networks must decide what horrible photos to air and which ones they won’t air.
I just wish I was a journalism professor right now - this would be a great discussion among current journalism students. I remember just 8 years ago while in college being told that the Internet wasn’t a “real” source of research. A few years later while working on my Masters, I used online options for research nearly all of the time. Perhaps it’s just a matter of adopting the blog as a legitimate medium. Good luck and be safe.
I think that telling the story is what it’s all about, and there’s nothing closer to the story than an independent going it alone as you’re going to be doing…
Well, a bit is an understatement. But perhaps a debate with somebody who thinks blogs are biased and only one opinion will lead to that person realizing that it’s no different than cnn, et al…and as Christopher points out, at least the reader is aware of that!
I don’t think Chris needs to be apologetic or defensive for one minute. The whole project— both in-country and in-America— follows in the proud tradition of great independent journalists like Calude Cockburn and Izzy Stone who started their own publications (albeit paper; that was then; now is now) in order to liberate themselves from the journo establishment. We-all are so lucky nowadays that it takes nothing like the degree of organizing drudgery (sorry ‘bout that, Matt) that it took those fine pioneers to get their publications up and to keep them running…
I’m going to be “reporting” from Tanzania, Mozambique, and South Africa in justworldnews.com, just as I’ve done some “reporting” from stateside on it— as well as a fair bit of analyzing and the occasional just-mouthing-off— ever since I started it, ways back in, um, February.
Go for it, Chris. The UN-mediated, let me even say IM-mediate, quality of blogging is probably what some in the media establishment feel threatened by. Let them deal, huh?
I read about your trip in the Boston Herald; I’m looking forward to logging in (sorry cant afford anything-laid off). Regarding media independence; yesterday, I came across information on the Pentagon making physical threats against independent journalists.
refer to interview w/Katie Adie @ BBC on Irish Radio RTE1, March 10th, or http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/correspondents/newsid_2625000/2625875.stm. CC
Seems journalists have more to fear from DOD than Saddam’s Republican Guard.
Good luck-stay safe.
This blog shows less bias than much of what you see on Fair and Balanced Fox. Have a safe trip and we’ll all be watching and waiting for your reports from the road.
Your information about ClearChannel is really scary. After a 4 decade long cold war all we have to show for it is a media industry that is controlled by the government. Luckily, this is still a free country and brave people like you and your coalition are allowed to report as they see fit. I wish you the best of luck and I hope, most importantly, that you return safe, and secondly that you can embarrass the horrible media establishment into doing some real reporting. It is an ourage that with all their millions of dollars it takes an independent reporter backed by donations in order to get some good reporting.
I’m glad to come across this place to get different perspectives than the mainstream media in US. Thank you!! Look forward to your stories. STAY SAFE!!
Wow! #2 on Forbes list of best ‘Warblogs’!
http://www.pointblog.com/past/cat_warblogs.htmv
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/03/20/cxah0320warblogs.html
Here is some news that may be of help (very good - one can hope)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080432/entry/0/