LA Times article, Misleading w/Purpose

When one visits the Grand Canyon what part of the experience is most lasting in memory? The first five minutes of viewing the mammoth water carving or the last five minutes?

In a meeting at work, when is your attention most keen? In the beginning or at the end?

Edmund Sanders of the Los Angeles Times wrote an artile published Sunday, April 10, 2005. The article was regarding a large gathering of Iraqis. The title of the article, "Iraqi protestors flex free speech force." The subtitle then reads, "300,000 led by Shiites demand that US troops leave."

The story was covering a peaceful rally or protest of Iraqis who are becoming impatient with American Troops and their occupation of Iraq. The beginning of the article paints a very grim picture as you will see. The middle portion segways from negative to more of a positive tone.Below are short quotes from the article.

The first is the introduction;
"Baghdad, Iraq * Chanting "Death to America" and burning effigies of President Bush and Saddam Hussein, tens of thousands of Iraqis flooded central Baghdad..."

"...many Shiite Arabs in Iraq have grown so frustrated by the lingering occupation... they took to the streets to call for... [US] troop withdrawal."

[Protestors] "Carrying banners that read 'Go Out' and 'Leave Our Country' "

"The American people need to know that they can't suppress us anymore, even with all their strength and power," said Salih Khalaf.

"America is the mother of terrorism."

The transition between negative and a more positive article begins in paragraph 9;
"Raising Fists and shouting in unison, protestors chanted. 'No, No to America! No, No to Occupation!' Many waved Iraqi flags and carried pictures of al-Sadr and his revered father, Mohammed al-Sadr, who was assassinated during the Saddam regime. One protestor dragged a picture of Saddam through the gutter..."

The transition becomes confusing when the article shifts gears away from intial negativity. The article begins including quotations of Iraqis in this same protest who are attending for very different reasons then above.

Paragraph 13; "...Some people in the crowd expressed support for the United States and ambivalence about the occupation." 'I came here today to mark the fall of a tyrant, Saddam [Hussein], and to call for his execution," said Mohammed Abdal Hussein."

" '...we deeply thank all the people, including the Americans who helped us get rid of him...' said Nadhum Jaffar."

****************

An Ear of Analysis:
1) Inconsistencies;
The articles title, subtitle and first few paragraphs imply there are 300,000 protestors all calling for American troop withdrawal. The article infers one mass working in harmony. There are inconsistencies with the first paragraph when "tens of thousands" is then used to describe the crowd. Tens of thousands would be any value 10,000 =<> 100,000. Examples continue as the protestors are still inferred to be one mass with one agenda, Paragraph 7; "By 11am, the massive but orderly demonstration assembled in Firdos Square... What are the other 200k people doing while the LA Times is taking a headcount of angry Arab men?

2) Protest, Mix of Agenda;
The protestors came from many different places. Paragraph 6 hints about this; "Most of the protestors came from the Baghdad slum of Sadr City, but busloads also arrived from Kut, Amara, Baqubah and other cities. Did every person arriving from various cities all have one reason for being there? Did they all get the phone call or email to come down to the city? Even according to the Times article the answer is no. What percentage were there because they want the US to leave? What percentage were there to celebrate no more Saddam? What percentage were there because they simply wanted to show national pride and unity to other Iraqis on their new television stations and freedom of speech airwaves? Mr Sanders did not give us these facts. They would be beneficial in writing an objective article.

3) Order of presentation;
When reading a paper, many people do not finish every article. They may either read the title only to see if it something in which they have interest or read a portion of the article and stop short of finishing it. The positive portion of this article may never be read at all.

Those who do read the entire article are likely to fall into the Grand Canyon analogy; They may remember the beginning and forget the end.

Corn Conjecture;
Respectfully, Mr Sanders is guilty of putting the worst possible face on this event. The editor of the Los Angeles Times can argue the article is balanced due to quotations of seemingly opposing viewpoints. Both the Times and Mr. Sanders are intelligent enough to know the negative beginning will be remembered more likely then the positive end.

It seems possible the 200,000 for which Mr Sanders does not account could be your run of the mill US supporter or ambivalent citizen.

In fairness the article does touch on credibility in paragraph four, "At the same time, the fact that so many protestors were able to gather and freely voice their opinions without bloodshed or insurgent attacks suggest Iraq is making progress toward establishing a democratic system and creating a strong security force." However Mr Sanders is just a little late with this news. The democratic process has been moving forward since the 8 million showed up to the polls. The insurgent attacks have been on the decline for months thanks to both the deliberate dwindling of US influence and the proportional increase in Iraqi force preparedness.

Iraq is improving and the citizens still remember oppression and death. Some may be tired of the US troop presence. Maybe even tired and frustrated enough to take part in this protest. Others are not there to protest American at all. Some maybe there to celebrate another day without their family members 'never coming home' under Saddam Husseins 30 years of brutality. Some may be there to cheer the new democracy. Others are there because they are curious of this new thing called "freedom to assemble."

We must remember nearly every person under the age of thirty has never experienced the freedom of choiec, democracy, or a free market. The average Iraqi is at least as smart as the average American. I think the average Iraqi is hopeful for their future and could see through the agenda of the LA Times.