Elmer's Brother

from Opinion Journal Good news from Iraq: U.S. and Iraqi troops won a major battle in Najaf over the weekend, foiling a plot by a Shiite cult-cum-militia to storm the city, occupy its most sacred mosque and assassinate the religious hierarchy, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

Bad news from Iraq, according to a New York Times story headlined "Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions":

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

That's the lead paragraph. The sixth paragraph informs us:

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle.

Good to know! And at least that's a full 21 paragraphs earlier in the story than in the most recent item of this genre, which appeared just last Friday. Still, both these stories seem written to conform to a media stereotype of Iraq as a futile struggle. Even in success stories, what's emphasized is the struggle, with the success being only an incidental detail.

Meanwhile, Times ombudsman Byron Calame reports (last item) that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon":

The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 "Charlie Rose" show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed "victory is within our grasp." The transcript of Mr. Gordon's response, which he stressed was "purely personal," includes these comments:

"So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has "long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances," Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

"I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the 'Charlie Rose' show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far."

It's a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman--and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon.

But as Clay Waters of NewsBusters.org notes, Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar doesn't seem to have gotten into any trouble for expressing the following personal view, also on "Charlie Rose":

If you talk to people my age--I'm in my mid-40s--and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation.

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation." Apparently this is what passes for "analysis" at the New York Times.