Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

For the second week in a row, the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have surpassed economic stories published in the Grand Rapids Press on news out of Washington. There were a total of ten articles in week twelve of the coverage and 7 of those stories were US foreign policy/military spending related. Only two stories were specific to the domestic economy and The Press ran one story from the Associated Press (4/12) asking the question, “Where will Obama worship?”

More Money for Occupations

There were a total of seven military related stories during week twelve of the The Grand Rapids Press coverage of the Obama administration. Two of those stories were focused on military spending; an April 10 story on the President’s request for an additional $83 billion for Iraq & Afghanistan, and an April 12 New York Times article that presented information on the proposed changes in the overall Defense budget.
The April 10 article states that the President has made an “$83.4 billion request for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The story continues by saying, “his Democratic allies in control of Congress are sure to approve the spending without the type of tortuous battle that characterized their dealings with former President George W. Bush.” The Press version of this AP story omits any critical comments from Democratic lawmakers who oppose the requested funds for war, which gives the impression that all Democrats support the President. However, independent reporter Jeremy Scahill provides several oppositional responses from Democrats in a recent article that challenges the administration’s foreign policy narrative.
The The Grand Rapids Press then ran a New York Times article on April 12 that begins by saying, “Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced a major reshaping of the Pentagon budget on Monday, with deep cuts in many traditional weapons systems but new billions of dollars for others, along with more troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.” However, the article focuses mostly on specific weapons systems and presents the proposed Defense Budget as inadequate for US national security.
Both Democrats and Republicans are cited in The Times article criticizing the President on defense cuts, which probably has more to do with their ties to Defense contractors than their concerns over the size of the military budget. Unfortunately, what the article missed was the fact that the Obama administration’s proposed 2010 military budget is $21 billion dollars more than the 2009 budget under Bush. The Times does cite a military expert from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think-tank with ties to the defense industry, but that comment only looks at the military hardware, not the overall budget. This assessment is significantly different from the analysis provided by the Center for Defense Information, which is made up primarily of former high ranking US military personnel.

More Violence and Omitted Voices

The remaining stories on Obama’s foreign policy plans for Iraq and Afghanistan are very instructive when looking at home mainstream media presents an official narrative. The April 8 AP story on President Obama’s visit with US troops in Iraq focuses on the contrast between the new president’s “spontaneous visit” and “the staid, set-piece visits by the conflict’s author, former President George W. Bush.”
Nowhere in the April 8 AP article does the reporter challenge or even clarify the Obama plan for Iraq. The story just repeats the mantra that the President plans on “ending the war in Iraq by 2010.” Independent reporter Dahr Jamail has much different assessment of the president’s visit to Iraq when he points out that while Obama praised the troops for their “extraordinary achievements,” he still doesn’t raise the issue that more than a million Iraqis have died since the US occupation of 2003 began.
The story on the upbeat visit by President Obama in Iraq is a much different story than the Los Angeles Times article which ran on April 11 in the Grand Rapids Press. The article states that a suicide bomber attacked US troops killing 5 “U.S. soldiers in the deadliest strike against American forces in Iraq in 13 months.” The story focuses on this one attack but doesn’t provide any analysis of the recent rise in violence that Dahr Jamail documents, nor does it mention the Iraqis who have been the target of violence from both insurgent groups and the US military.
Patrick Cockburn, who has been reporting from Iraq since the beginning of the US occupation, also provides some important analysis of the recent violence in Iraq. He also points out that “the Sunni who changed from insurgents to US allies over the last two years are once more fearful for their future.” This fear has increased with the plan to have more US troops leave Iraq between now and 2010.
There were also three stories that dealt with the US military campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the past week. On April 6, there was a New York Times piece on the reluctance of Pakistani leaders to support the US attacks against insurgent groups in that country. Unfortunately, the Grand Rapids Press omitted the bulk of The Times story, particularly the section that cites Pakistani leaders and their criticism of US policies. But even the full New York Times story does not provide any independent analysis of US policy in Pakistan, nor does it mention the human cost of the US use of unmanned military drones to bomb inside Pakistan.
The absence of coverage on human suffering in Pakistan and Afghanistan because of the US occupation was further reflected in an April 12 Associated Press story that focused on how Afghani rug makers have developed new designs in order to sell their rugs to US troops. The irony is that while the AP reporter tells readers that Afghani rug makers, who are desperate to make a living, have made rugs with images about the terrorist attacks against the US in 2001. What is not so ironic is that the reporter frames this story in such a way as to convey the idea that the Afghanis are happy that the US military occupies their country, despite growing opposition from Afghanis.

One domestic issue and the President’s role in the NATO Summit that took place in on the German/French border dominated the eleventh week of The Grand Rapids Press coverage of the Obama administration.
Three stories were related to the announcement by the Obama administration that GM CEO Rich Wagner would step down, while four stories focused on the NATO Summit in Europe that the President attended. The only other story that received any attention related to the new administration was a short article written by a Grand Rapids Press reporter on an upcoming debate between two national magazine editors on the first one hundred days of the Obama administration.

GM CEO Steps Down

The week’s coverage began with a story from the Washington Post headlined, “Obama pushes, GM chief jumps.” The article states that the “administration effectively rejected as untenable the business plans that GM and Chrysler had submitted to restructure their companies, saying that neither had fulfilled the terms of the federal loans the companies received in December.”
The only sources cited in this story are an unnamed “senior White House official” and a representative from Edmunds, which the articles states, is “a consumer-focused automotive Web site.” In reality, the Web site appears more like a marketing site for auto dealers.
On Tuesday, March 31st The Press ran an Associated Press article on how autoworkers responded to the administration’s decision to not provide any financial assistance to the auto industry. One UAW local president stated, “when it comes to auto manufacturing and middle-class jobs and people that don’t matter on Wall Street, there are certainly different standards that we have to meet — higher standards — than the financials. That is a double standard that exists and it’s unfair.”
Another UAW spokesperson mention the double standard of the government imposing strict conditions on the auto industry in order to receive financial assistance, but the same conditions do not apply to Wall Street. One additional article appeared on the 31st that dealt with a reaction to the administration’s announcement about GM. The Grand Rapids Press published a reaction from current Congressional Representative Pete Hoekstra. However, the article has more to do with Hoekstra’s candidacy for the Michigan Governor’s seat in the 2010 election. Hoekstra states that President Obama should not be able to intervene in the matters of private industry.

NATO, Afghanistan, and US Power

There were four articles during the week of March 30 – April 5 that dealt with the foreign policy pronouncements of the Obama administration during the annual NATO Summit. The first story appeared on March 31st from the Washington Post and framed Obama’s NATO Summit role in terms of his campaign promise to “regain the international community’s confidence in the US.” The Washington Post reporter accepts the administration’s position that the US is ” the world leader.” By not questioning this premise, the reporter never challenges the role that the US plays in foreign affairs. Only President Obama is cited in the article, so readers never hear other opinions on the new administration’s broad foreign policy agenda.
An additional article on March 31st announcemes a conference between 73 nations on the current crisis in Afghanistan. The Press ran a shortened version of an AP story that only included a brief comment from US Secretary of State Clinton and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. This article is also framed in such a way that doesn’t challenge the US role in the current Afghan crisis by stating that nations were gathering “to reinvigorate international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan’s lawless western border region.” Unfortunately, there is no analysis of how the Afghan/Pakistan border has become so “lawless,” as the article states, particularly since Obama took office.
The coverage of NATO Summit ended on April 5 with an AP story headlined, “NATO support has limits.” The article states that many other nations will only commit to providing security forces in Afghanistan for the upcoming elections, but are hesitant to support the US escalation. The story only provides comments from President Obama and other NATO leaders, but omits Afghani or Pakistani perspectives on the current crisis. There is mention of anti-war protestors at the NATO Summit, but the article provides no details of the protest or any articulation of why thousands of people gathered in opposition to the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan.

The economy still continues to be the dominant news story coming out of Washington in week ten of the Obama administration, but US policy in Afghanistan also received significant coverage for the week. A total of 11 stories were published by The Grand Rapids Press on the Obama administration for week ten, with six stories focused on the economy and four on Afghanistan.

Racial Disparity

The only story in the past week not about Afghanistan or exclusively about the economy was a story based on the Urban League’s annual “State of Black America” report. (http://www.nul.org/thestateofblackamerica.html) The Associated Press story provides a summary of the report findings, which state that there is a disparity between Whites and Blacks in the US when it comes to employment, health care, education, jobs, and housing. The article does quote Urban League CEO Mark Morial who says, “Public policy matters, and we have to recognize too that it does require additional and extraordinary investments when it comes to children, to lift up children that are disadvantaged.” The AP article does not include the numerous policy recommendations that the Urban League offers in its annual report, recommendations that could benefit readers by providing them with the idea that the Urban League is not just pointing out what is wrong, but is offering up some solutions.

More on the Economy

The state of the national economy was presented in a variety of stories, ranging from the federal budget to the stimulus package. The week began (3/23) with an article from The New York Times headlined, “Wanted: Buyers for bad assets.” The article provides a summary of a new Obama administration plan that, “relies on private investors to team up with the government to relieve banks of assets tied to loans and mortgage-linked securities of unknown value.”
The only people sourced in this story are administration officials and the chief executive of BlackRock, a money management company, who said, “his firm planned to participate in the program.” It’s unfortunate that no other voices are included in the story, especially since BlackRock recently brought on to its board of directors someone who works for Merrill Lynch, one of the companies receiving billions in taxpayer bailout money that also provided huge bonuses to its staff right after the bailout was announced.
On Tuesday, March 24, the President gave a speech from the White House, a speech that was reported on by The New York Times and published on March 25 in The Grand Rapids Press. The New York Times article focused mostly on the demeanor of the President, with comments from Democratic consultant Joe Trippi, who said, “He said all the right things. But sometimes his confidence makes him seem flat.” The story did not provide readers with many details of the President’s speech, reactions from analysts or any verification of the claims made in the speech.
The Grand Rapids Press did run a follow up story to the President’s March 24 address to the nation, which includes comments from a local non-profit worker and Congressman Ehlers. The comments cited in The Press article from Ehlers are critical of the President’s budget proposal, but a financial counselor with the Inner City Christian Federation said she had “faith (Obama) is doing what he can to make that happen.”
The remaining economic stories reported on how States will lose federal tax money because of the stimulus (3/26), a House panel endorses the proposed federal budget (3/26), and an Associated Press story on March 27 commenting on how government regulation of the market might not be a political liability right now.

Obama and Afghanistan

On Monday, March 23, The Grand Rapids Press ran an AP story that was based on a CBS 60 Minutes interview with President Obama on March 22. The AP story provides a very brief overview of the President’s comments, but offers no investigation into the claims made about the President’s strategic plan for the US military occupation of Afghanistan. In addition, there are no Afghani responses to the President’s plan, nor any independent analysis of what this 3-5 year plan would mean for that region of the world.
In addition to the story on the President’s interview, The Press ran an AP article on the same day that touched on the possible increase in private military contractors in Afghanistan. The story cites Michigan Senator Carl Levin who expresses some concern over the proposed increase of private security forces in Afghanistan. Levin was quoted as saying that the increase in private contractors in Iraq is what led to “widespread abuses” of human rights. The AP article provides a response to Levin from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but offers no details on what private military contractors would do in Afghanistan or what they have already been used for since the 2001 US invasion began.
The remaining two articles on Afghanistan were published on March 27 and March 29. The March 27 article from the Los Angeles Times was headlined, “Afghanistan Taliban still a puzzle.” Most of the article relies on comments from State Department officials and Dennis Blair, the director of National Intelligence discussing how to combat the resurgence of the Taliban. The only other source cited in the article was Michigan Senator Carl Levin. Levin’s comments are a criticism of how NATO has not done their part to prevent the Taliban from regaining significant portions of the country. Again, no Afghani voices are sourced in the story, nor are there any independent assessments of why the Taliban control much of the country once again.
The last article for the week’s coverage was a Washington Post article on President Obama’s new strategic plan for Afghanistan. The article is based upon a speech the President gave on March 28 where he laid out his plan for US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Washington Post article does a pretty good job of summarizing the President’s comments. The article did acknowledge the US missile attacks in Pakistan, but there is no mention of civilian deaths from those attacks. The only other sources cited in the story besides the President are a CIA consultant, Richard Holbrooke and Michigan Senator Carl Levin. All three of these sources had favorable comments about the new US plan for Afghanistan.

The 9th week of the Grand Rapids Press coverage of the Obama administration was dominated by the “outrage” directed at the financial company AIG. Out of the total of 13 stories in the past week that dealt with the new administration, seven were about AIG alone.
In addition to AIG, there were three other stories that focused on the economy. The US military occupations of Iraq (2 stories) and Afghanistan (1 story) made up the rest of the stories for week nine.

Outraged Over AIG

Beginning on March 17, the Grand Rapids Press ran seven stories that focused on American International Group’s (AIG) decision to provide $165 million in bonus money to company executives. The March 17 article from the Associated Press was headlined, “Taxpayers unlikely to be repaid by AIG.” This AP story, while critical of AIG’s decision, only provided the opinions of one Democratic Congressman, a University professor who teaches risk management, and a financial consultant. None of these sources discuss how companies like AIG function or how the bailout money was managed.
In fact, most of the coverage surrounding the AIG scandal is focused on the $165 million in bonus money, but little is said about the practices of companies like AIG over the past couple of decades. Instead, the coverage provides a venue for politicians to express frustration over AIG’s decision to give bonuses after being the recipient of bailout money. One example is from a March 17 story that focuses on the reactions of two West Michigan Congressmen, Rep. Vern Ehlers and Pete Hoekstra.
Politicians are also the main sources used in a March 18 article titled, “Bonuses are part of Wall Street culture.” This AP story provides some mild criticisms of AIG, but there is no analysis of how and why companies like AIG needed bailout money in the first place. The lack of substantive coverage was also reflected in another March 18 story that began with the sentence, “Cue the outrage.” Unfortunately, the article doesn’t provide readers with any investigation into how AIG was able to get away with paying its executives the large bonuses.
It wasn’t until March 19, when the Press ran a Los Angels Times article that there was any acknowledgement of the historical relationship between Wall Street and Washington. The article states, “Prominent Republicans, joined by some Democrats, suggested that the answer could be found in longtime ties linking Washington to Wall Street.” However, even this article failed to provide any details of that historical relation, such as can be found in a new report from the Consumer Education Foundation entitled, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America.” The report shows that:

“From 1998-2008, Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.725 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, a financial juggernaut aimed at undercutting federal regulation. Nearly 3,000 officially registered federal lobbyists worked for the industry in 2007 alone. The report documents a dozen distinct deregulatory moves that, together, led to the financial meltdown. These include prohibitions on regulating financial derivatives; the repeal of regulatory barriers between commercial banks and investment banks; a voluntary regulation scheme for big investment banks; and federal refusal to act to stop predatory subprime lending.”

The week of coverage ended with a March 22nd article headlined, “AIG’s cool head in a hot seat.” The article mainly provides a venue for AIG chairman Edward Liddy to defend the company. The only critical voice in the story was from Congressman Barney Frank, despite the fact that there were protestors there to greet the AIG chairman. The article did mention that the protestors had to put their signs down during the hearing, but there was no mention of who organized the demonstration. the Grand Rapids Press did include a picture with the story, which shows that the peace group, Code Pink, was the ones protesting the AIG executive, but there was no mention of their perspective.

Six Years After the US Occupation of Iraq

There were also three articles in week nine of the coverage that dealt with the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. A March 19 Associated Press story provided a short explanation for the new administration’s announcement to possibly send some civilian personnel to Afghanistan “to reinforce the non-military component in Kabul and the existing provincial reconstruction teams in the countryside, officials said.” The article provides comments from US diplomats, but no Afghani perspectives are included.
On March 22, the Press ran two stories that dealt with the sixth anniversary of the US occupation of Iraq. The first story, headlined “Protestors mark Iraq war milestone,” provides a short summary of a demonstration organized by the group ANSWER. The story does mention a few of the reasons why protestors demonstrated, but the article spent an equal amount of time on the “tensions” that existed between protestors and police.
The other article on March 22nd was headlined, “Iraq better than before but still shaky,” presents the situation in Iraq as one where violence has decreased and the future threat of violence will emerge from “sectarian violence.” This New Wire Service story does have a few Iraqi perspectives, but both are government officials. There is no mention of what the six years of US occupation has meant in terms of Iraqi deaths nor was there mention of the organized demonstrations in Iraq that were protesting the US occupation.