Searching for objectivity in the midst of bias

Sometimes the headline differences seem slight. In The Washington Post, "Iraqi, U.S. Forces Storm Baghdad Mosque" – while Al-Jazeera's website reports, "Two killed after Baghdad mosque raid." Even from this difference, however, we begin to see the radically opposing outlooks of each media service. Closer examination of such articles often reveals differences – both in terms of facts and manner of presentation -- so extreme that impartial observers can be left wondering if simple truth can ever overcome bias. Emotions trump objectivity.

For Al-Ahram Weekly, the battle of Fallujah is clearly a struggle between an Arab/Muslim David and the American Goliath. Images of tough, heartless American soldiers battling a spirited resistance "who possess little beyond resolve, self-belief, and convictions" leap from its articles. Readers' thoughts are turned time and again to stories of executed Iraqi prisoners, rampant looting "by Iraqi forces, under US control [emphasis added]," and US military refusals to permit aid groups into Fallujah. In Al-Jazeera, readers are introduced to "young freedom fighters," battling "American criminals," and their allies, the "Iraqi apostates" as the spokesman of the Shura Council of the Muhajidin in Fallujah is offered free reign in presenting his outlook on the battle in a phone interview from November 14th. Regardless of the facts provided in these articles, choices of terminology and tone leave no question in the minds of the audience regarding which side should be perceived as the villain.

For the reader who does search for facts, Al-Jazeera provides US military press releases ("at least 51 US soldiers" dead during the siege of Fallujah) side-by-side with reports from the Muhajidin Council ("nearly 400 US servicemen" killed and "126 US servicemen" captured) careful to point out that it cannot confirm either side's figures. This deft touch leaves readers with the impression that neither of the figures should truly be trusted.

Although most American publications profess to report an objective view, their acceptance of American military terminology and reliance on American military protection to escape the confines of the Green Zone often create an underlying bias. In the New York Times, American troops and Iraqi soldiers battle "insurgents" and "hardened anti-American fighters" – who always seem to be mentioned within one or two sentences of beheaded corpses and innocent Iraqis killed by car bombs. Fox News Channel's report on an American discovery of "a key command center of terror mastermind [emphasis added]…Zarqawi " leaves little room for questioning Zarqawi's role in the battle of good vs. evil. Stories stressing American preoccupation with limiting civilian casualties and U.S. military efforts to rebuild shattered infrastructure leave the strong impression in readers' minds that, while American forces take every step to protect and provide for noncombatants, "insurgents" and "terrorists" actively target the innocent as part of their campaign to spread chaos and fear.

Similar to its reliance on the American military for terminology, American press agencies tend to accept casualty figures (for both sides) provided by the same source. CNN reported 1,000 to 2,000 insurgents killed in Fallujah as of November 14th. Like Al-Jazeera, CNN is careful to note the casualty figures are not theirs. Unlike Al-Jazeera, little effort is made to present the counter-claims of either insurgent organizations or NGOs. By reporting American military numbers (even with the caveat of "estimated"), CNN and others are presenting an implied belief to audiences that these are the most accurate available.

More than differing sources and viewpoints, these conflicting reports provide the intellectual framework for realities that are as diametrically opposed as north and south on a compass. Regardless of questions and concerns presented in US press reports, most American reporters operate with the underlying belief in the justness of the society for which they write. America is the good guy with the bad plan. For Arab journalists, the United States represents a continuation of Western domination and imperialism dating back to the Crusades. America is the arrogant, greedy giant intent on securing its own interests regardless of the cost to Iraq.

In a war that America chose to fight, against an enemy that dismisses Western ideas of lawful warfare, reported on by organizations more interested in defining good and evil than demonstrating objective accuracy, just who are the good guys?