I was watching the Iraq war on TV this week when I heard an analyst for Fox News say, "Saddam is watching Arab television, not Fox News, so he thinks his strategy is working."
If Saddam can tell what's going on from watching television -- whether it's Arab, American or British -- then he's doing better than I am. I can't make heads or tails of it.
In the first days, I was amazed by the technology bringing us a war live from the front for the first time in history. I wasn't nearly as amazed as the TV networks, however, who were simply gushing over their own pictures and correspondents.
After the initial gee-whiz technology factor had passed, my fascination remained with the reporters in the field. From what I've seen, they have done a remarkable job -- of surviving, of reporting, of conveying information on what it's like to be in a battle or on the move through a desert to engage the enemy.
It's nothing compared to the soldiers actually in the line of fire, of course, but we're getting a taste of what that's like through the journalists.
The reporters, both television and print, seem to be giving it to us straight. They have limits on the details they can provide, to which they agreed when they became embedded in various military units, and that's entirely appropriate. Although their dispatches are as real and pointed as they can be, the reporters can tell us only what they see around them. It's a very narrow view.
The larger view comes from reporters at briefings at the Pentagon and Central Command, where they can offer some perspective and question the strategy being employed by military leaders.
The journalist in me says it shouldn't make much difference which reports you're watching. All the reporters should be striving for accuracy and objectivity. They may be reporting different information, and in different ways, but it should be up to me to digest. I should be able to trust what I hear.
Clearly, though, it makes a difference. The reports being broadcast by Al Jazeera, the Arab TV network, are obviously different from the American sources. So are the British, French, German, Italian and so on. Bias happens.
Military historian Prof. Martin van Creveld has a cynical view: "Everyone is lying about everything all the time, and it is difficult to say what is happening. I've stopped listening. All the pictures shown on TV are color pieces which have no significance."
"There is a lot of disinformation," he says. "Every word that is spoken is suspect."
I don't think that's true -- at least the lying part. Sure, we should be skeptical about everything we hear, but that's why we should get our news from many sources. We can compare.
What television is struggling hard to do is separate news, analysis, pure speculation, opinion and propaganda.
Fox News seems to have dropped all pretense of distinguishing among them. Opinions are liberally sprinkled in with every bit of news, and speculation is rampant. I don't necessarily disagree with what they say; it's a matter of being able to tell when information is being presented as fact and when it's somebody simply spouting off.
It all runs together, 24 hours a day, as anchorpeople in the studio freely offer their opinions and anything they've heard, thought they heard or only wished they might have heard without a care as to whether it's accurate or verified.
Propaganda is a word loosely thrown about. When we're talking Iraqi TV, which is state-run, the label fits. But the U.S. government also is engaged in propaganda campaigns, and a big part of what journalists must do is verify information before disseminating it.
"In the United States," writes Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times, "Fox News simply has wrapped itself in the flag and makes no effort to distinguish between its journalism and the U.S. war effort. Fox executives can be pleased that their approach has allowed the network to hold the lead in cable news ratings; the rest of us can be relieved that viewers who want that sort of thing will be too busy having their prejudices confirmed to bother the rest of us. With some notable exceptions, meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corp. -- heard nightly on many PBS and NPR stations -- has continued to elevate traditional reportorial skepticism to near-toxic levels.
"For the moment, we're all transfixed. And, as we're all beginning to learn, transfixed is different from informed."
In a new era of "live" war coverage, the media are being put to the test. Judging how well we're doing is like judging how well the war is going -- I can offer my opinion based on what I've seen, heard and read so far, but I don't know. Maybe when the shooting is over I'll have a picture that makes sense.
Barry Smith is editor of the Nevada Appeal.