Journalists Discuss Iraq

Five acclaimed journalists met Thursday night in Journalism Hall for a panel discussion on their views of the war in Iraq and their experiences covering it.

Representing a wide spectrum of nationalities and media coverage, the panelists discussed how the American public has been blocked from receiving the full, accurate story of what has been happening in Iraq as well as the evolution of media coverage during the war.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a managing editor for the Washington Post, spoke of the changes among the Iraqi people immediately after the 40-foot statue of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad's main square on April 9, 2003. "All [of] the sudden you had a place where journalists could operate freely and, surprisingly, safely. You were embraced. I was invited in. It was an entirely different country," he said.

Deborah Amos, a foreign correspondent for National Public Radio and ABC News, agreed, saying, "You couldn't get Iraqis to shut up. Everyone had a story to tell, and they'd do it on the record from the rooftops."

"I felt Iraq was starting a new age and that it was going to be the best country in the world," said Ali Fadhil, an Iraqi physician and translator.

Chandrasekaran added, however, "that moment in time didn't last for long."

By late summer 2003, the incidence of car bombs and other forms of violent resistance rose precipitously. "It wasn't a static situation," he said. "You prepared, you adjusted, and you had to be dynamic in the way you adjusted."

Patrick Graham, a Canadian freelance journalist who spent a year with the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah, said, "The truth and facts are not that closely related. The facts in Iraq were very elusive. [In Fallujah], a lot of people were killed. A lot of kids were killed. That just wasn't reported. You didn't read about how violent Fallujah was."

Chris Hondros, a Pulitzer Prize-nominated war photographer, said of his photos in Iraq, "I felt that they were important, but I wondered whether or not people would take notice."

The panelists said initial coverage of the war was not as accurate as it should have been. "Everything in Iraq was run for a domestic American audience. It was much more important how it played in New Jersey than how it played in Iraq," Graham said.

"There was this remarkable disconnect between what we journalists were seeing every day ... then you get into the briefing room, and everything is hunky-dory," Chandrasekaran said.

The panelists said that in their experience, many journalists, soldiers, and officials were very naive about foreign countries, and more specifically about the people of Iraq. More than half of the Coalition Peace Agreement, a multinational transitional government, "applied for their first passport to go to Iraq," Chandrasekaran said.

It is harder for Americans to report in Iraq today than it was in 2003, according to Amos. "When you pick up your newspaper, ... [Iraq] looks normal, like in 2003. There's no warning that you're not getting the full details. There's no warning that you're just not getting the story anymore, not the way you were," she said.

Hondros is skeptical of a bright future for Iraq. "Two and a half years later, what was apparent to most journalists is now apparent to the public."

"I don't know why Americans think there is a solution," Graham said. "Why should there be a solution?"