17/08/2014
Since
Wednesday, we've been pointing out that the political deadlock in Iraq was breaking, allowing a resolution of the crisis that owes much to Maliki's intransigence. But now, one newspaper, the
Independent is picking up the sea change, remarking that:
⦠both Sunni and Shia tribal and clerical leaders have given their conditional backing to Iraq's new Prime Minister, in a move that could end political deadlock and ultimately contain an offensive by extremist Sunni Islamic State (IS) militants.
Interestingly, over term,
The Independent has been one of the more reliable newspapers in recording events in Iraq (judging in relative terms), one of the least reliable in my view being
The Times.
As I recall, even at the end of March 2008, when there were good indications that Maliki had
succeeded with his gamble in launching Operation
Charge of the Knights in Basra,
The Times was
calling it wrong (their blushes now concealed behind the paywall) - correspondent James Hider in Sadr City, 350 miles away from the action, was pronouncing: "Nouri al-Maliki humiliated as gamble to crush Shia militias fail".
This is the same newspaper which currently is
retailing a story from Lt-Col Richard Williams, a "former SAS commanding officer", under the headline: "UK suffering from lack of intelligence".
Disregard the obvious
double entendre,
it seems Britain has suffered an "intelligence gap" in Iraq since withdrawing troops and should rebuild its ability to combat jihadists who pose a threat to the UK. In this assertion, Williams is also joined by Lt-Gen Graeme Lamb, who makes it an "intelligence and information gap".
Actually, as I see it, this is more an inadequacy in monitoring available sources, and poor analysis. The information is usually there if you look for it, and are prepared to cast your next wider than the "usual suspects".
In the military, the government, politics generally and the media, there is a huge degree of snobbery in the treatment of sources, with "prestige" more often than not deciding on which information is used. The more prestigious the source, the more likely it is that an account â or analysis - will be accepted.
Basically, "buyers" of information more concerned about prestige than accuracy. Because so many journalists simply do not have the architectural framework to understand what they see or are told, much less determine its veracity, they judge it according to the prestige of the source.
This is also a safe option. No fault lies in getting it wrong, as long as the source is prestigious. On the other hand, someone who goes out on their own and uses unorthodox sources, and gets it wrong, is more likely to be criticised or have their work rejected.
Thus, we see
The Times prefer "Pentagon briefings" and statements from the office of the President, rather than local sources which have details of what is actually happening on the ground.
Even though we learn on Friday from Ahmed Khalaf al-Dulaimi, governor of the Sunni heartland Anbar, that the US is committed to providing air support in the battle against ISIS, we have to wait the next day to be told by
The Times, for Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.
When he tells us that the US Navy and Air Force were authorised to launch attacks wherever Americans, military or civilian, were under threat, and that the air strikes already carried out were "predominantly to protect US personnel and facilities", this goes on the front page.
This dynamic undoubtedly means that the media is
struggling to catch up on the reality, as reports come in of attempts to recapture Mosul dam, with the effect that we have never been so expensively or comprehensively misinformed.
After all, is was only a day ago that the media was reporting that ISIS forces were massing for an attack on the Kurdish capital, with Baghdad also threatened, and now â without so much as a blush â we hear of attacks in the heart of ISIS-held territory.
But then as I remarked the other day, being in the legacy media means never having to say you're sorry.
FORUM THREAD
