CBS, not the US military, decided what Katie Couric would see in Iraq

Much has been made of a statement by CBS news anchor Katie Couric on this Sunday's Face the Nation:

"... you do see signs of life [in Iraq] that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well."

The obvious implication has been seized upon by commentators who are anxious to see the US out of Iraq: that CBS had no choice but to go along with the US military's itinerary for Couric when they sent her to Iraq.

So then how was Germany's premier newspaper, Der Spiegel, able to write their own itinerary for the US military, when they sent their reporter to do an in-depth story on Iraq?

To review the statement by Der Spiegel reporter Ullrich Fichtner:

Research for this story took me on a three-week journey throughout the country, my fourth trip to Iraq in as many years. Under the protection of the US military, it led us to the northern city of Mosul and its suburbs, to Ramadi and to Baghdad. The military did not choose our destinations, SPIEGEL did. Apart from a few technical and strategic details, nothing was censored.

Yet Spiegel was known to the US military as always very strongly critical about the US military effort in Iraq. And Der Spiegel has infinitely greater influence on European opinion -- and in Washington diplomatic and defense circles -- than CBS could ever hope to achieve in the USA. So if there was ever a time for the US military to take control of a reporter's itinerary in Iraq, Der Spiegel's visit was it. And yet the military allowed Spiegel to write their own tour.

So what's really going on with CBS? I think their insurance company, even more than their news producers, decided on their lead anchor's itinerary in Iraq. Ms. Couric is a $15 million property of CBS. So what we're really talking about is risk aversion, not military propaganda.

The same holds true for US politicians who complain that the US military feeds them rosy propaganda when they drop into Iraq on a fact-finding tour. If you want to hang out in the Green Zone, you're going to get the military's Power Point tour of Iraq, no doubt about it.

But if you want a comprehensive view of the situation in Iraq, and want to risk your life to get it, the US military will oblige. Just ask independent reporter Michael J. Totten; The New York Times military reporter Michael Gordon; and a long list of other reporters, including Ullrich Fichtner, who have been willing to stick their neck out to learn what's really going on in Iraq.

I interject that the above should not be read as criticism of Katie Couric's reporting from Iraq, which will be aired on CBS evening news all this week. Whatever reporters' limitations, any sincere effort to tell the public what they've seen in Iraq is better than no effort. Not having seen her reports, I'll give Couric's sincerity the benefit of the doubt.

However, when it comes to truth in journalism, the question is why the US mainstream media ignored Der Spiegel's August 10 report. The report made a big splash in Europe because Spiegel, while still full of criticism for the US, found notable progress in Iraq -- and that the US effort there was worth pursuing.

Again, Der Spiegel had always been an unwavering opponent of the US in Iraq. So it was big news when Spiegel came out in support of a continued US effort there. Then what to make of the US mainstream media silence on the Spiegel report? I'd say that the media should look in the mirror, before they charge that the military won't allow them to bring an objective view of Iraq to the American public.