Jared Polis for Congress

Upon returning from Iraq, I have become more sensitive to the American media bias regarding what is occurring in Iraq.

Here is a small case study that shows the example of media bias; three extremely different press perspectives on the exact same story from a news cycle last week.

From the Nov. 27th news cycle, one of the main stories from the middle east was that Iraqi refugees were returning en masse from Syria. The Iraqi government chartered buses and invited media to see off the over 800 refugees returning to Iraq.

The official Iraqi government line, that the refugees were returning because it is “safer” in Iraq, was heavily if not exclusively featured in the mainstream American media. The fact that most of the Iraqis were returning because their visas were expiring or they were running out of money was not even mentioned.

First an American media story from this cycle,

The AP Article on the return of the Iraqis is called “Buses Bring Hundreds of Iraqis Home”

The first two paragraphs:

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Hundreds of Iraqi refugees boarded buses for home on Tuesday in the first convoy from an Iraqi-funded effort to speed the return of families that fled the country’s violence and insecurity. Many Iraqis have headed back on own their own from Syria and elsewhere as extremist attacks have fallen sharply in Baghdad and other areas. But now the Iraqi government is hoping to accelerate the flow — and draw more attention to the recent drop in violence — by offering to pay for trips home.

It then goes on for sixteen paragraphs generally extolling the return of the Iraqis including proclaiming that many Iraqis loudly chanted “Baghdad, you are victorious,” Finally, almost as an afterthought, it ends with the only other perspective on the story, a toned-down UN warning in the last paragraph:

Sybella Wikes, press officer for the UNHCR in Syria, said the agency doesn’t “think it’s time” yet for a massive refugee return. “We certainly can’t define the situation as being safe in any area in Iraq,” she said.

Next, a BBC article, entitled “Iraqi refugees begin journey home” which provides quotes that security is improved in Iraq but also offers a compelling alternative explanation, not even mentioned in the American rendition:

However, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) said most of the refugees it spoke to are returning because they have run out of money or have been unable to renew their visas.

A third piece on the same topic from the Malaysian Sun is entitled “Syria wants Iraqi refugees to go home” and continues

Syria has persuaded about 800 Iraqi refugees to return to their homeland. Syria has struggled to cope with the 1.5 million Iraqis who have sought refuge there, and it has recently tightened visa rules.

The mirror image of the AP article, the Malaysian Sun only gives the most fleeting reference to any possible security improvements:

Iraq’s ambassador to Syria, Hassan Abdul Aziz, said people were returning because the security situation had improved.

Three very different perspectives on the same exact story.

Finally, a thoughtful and well-balanced piece from the Financial Times (British) helps apply some objective criteria to exactly why the Iraqis are leaving Syria:

A survey of 110 Iraqi families by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees found that only 14 per cent were returning because of improved security, while 46 per cent said they could no longer afford to stay in Syria, where the law prevents Iraqis from working. A further 26 per cent pointed to Syrian visa regulations introduced on October 1 – immigration officials are now issuing Iraqis with exit stamps once their existing three-month visas have expired. Only those with medical requirements and children in Syrian schools are granted visa extensions.

So there you have it.

72% of the returning refugees are leaving Syria because their visas have expired or they have run out of money. Only 14% believe that the security is improved in Iraq. The UN itself is “not participating in the convoy because UNHCR doesn’t think it’s time right now to tell refugees to go back.”

The Malaysian piece isn’t far from the mark in that the return to Iraq is more a function of the Syrian government making it difficult for the refugees than it is the Iraqi security situation per se. The AP article largely gives the Iraqi government/American perspective with a toned down nod to the UN, and the British press features two well-reported stories including both sides and some excellent and highly relevant objective data.

This is just one example of how the American people are not necessarily getting accurate stories in our press. The AP article failed to include the highly relevant information that the vast majority of the returning Iraqis are returning because they are out of money or the Syrians are kicking them in the rear.

Here’s a site I like that features news from many sources on the Iraq situation. Next time you read an article in the American press on what’s going on in Iraq, it’s well worth to time to check out what the British and other international press are saying on the matter.

Jared Polis Candidate for US Congress Colorado 02

Coming in a few days: THE CLOSET OF FEAR: The systemic execution of gays and lesbians in Iraq POST-IRAQ-JORDAN THOUGHTS: Where do we go from here?