Maybe it’s because I saw the incredible documentary, “No End In Sight,” last night that I’m particularly sensitive, but it struck me as strange that the catastrophic synchronized bombings in northern Iraq yesterday, which were the deadliest since the war began, received such little coverage. They have already taken the lives of 250 people, and that number is expected to climb, possibly to 500.
It’s likely that the lack of clear information played a part in the low visibility of the bombing stories. The region where the massacre took place is remote and, unlike in Baghdad, there were no reporters or stringers on the ground for first-hand reporting. But, still, did the story merit being placed on A6 of both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and page 4 of USA Today. Only The Washington Post deemed it worthy of front-page news.
I just had to wonder, for the hundredth time, if we’ve stopped seeing the Iraqis - or if we ever really saw them to begin with. Do these numbers mean anything to an American audience? Clearly, editors at some of our most important papers didn’t think so.
Here's a cluebat for you, Mr. Beckerman. You're not going to see the MSM interested in the daily genocidal slaughter of non-Muslims by Islamist terrorists.
Whether in Malaysia, Iraq, Darfur, Bosnia, Thailand, or anywhere else.
It doesn't fit the liberal agenda. If people read about such things, they might do something stupid like actaully support the American military's misguided effort to stop this kind of back-page stuff.
Now, let an American soldier say "boo" to some Muslim somewhere, and THEN we'll see some front page ink, brother.
Such is the state of "professional journalism" in McLearyland.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 16 Aug 2007 at 11:45 AM
"No End In Sight?..."
Of course there is no end in sight to America's military presence in the Middle East.
To expect otherwise is to live a crack dream.
Why do so many liberals (and also some looney conservatives) think that the American military can withdraw from the Middle East after a few years, and expect the local population to play nice?
America still occupies Cuba and Puerto Rico from the Spanish-American War more than 100 years ago!
America occupies Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan from a war that occured more than 60 years ago.
America has military or quasi-military bases implanted all over the world in sovereign nations fron Greenland to Australia- and these "occupations" have persisted for years.
These American military installations are crucial to maintaining world order, no matter what some hippies may believe to the contrary.
Why do so many liberals believe that the coalition military forces can simply "cut-and-run" from any occupied territory immediately upon securing physical control of the territory, without incurring the very political instability and mayhem that necessitated military intervention in the first place?
Look at the Ancient Greeks... Look at the Romans.. Look at the Ottomans.. Look at the European nations and their colonies...
Military occupation (even a liberating occupation) takes YEARS. Simply "turning over the keys" results in genocide and creates a need to return and redo the job later.
WHY can't liberals grasp this little slice of reality?
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 16 Aug 2007 at 09:01 PM
Staying like we are and leaving and not caring are both horrible ideas. We messed up their country and need to fix it. There is a third way. www.planforiraq.com Biden is right.
Posted by Claude Pool
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 12:56 AM
Claude Pool wrote
We messed up their country and need to fix it.
padikiller responds
I personally do not believe that replacing Saddam's regime with a representative democracy "messed up" anything in Iraq...
I believe it instead "cleaned up" an era of madness- an era we helped to make with former policy.
That the terrorists exploited instability by bringing their violence to Iraq (the violence that the MSM relegates to B7 when 500 civilians are slaughtered) is an unfortunate, but separate situation.
The Iraq war lasted a few weeks and put Saddam first in a spider hole and later in a noose.
The war on terror is a related but different beast rising up in the same theater that will take years to quell.
One can argue in hindsight about the foreseablity of Al Quaida doing this, or doing that, and unquestionably the Bush administration has made many mistakes as well as stunning successes in the war.
But either way, a long-term commitment is necessary. We're going to be in Iraq for years. Liberals need to accept the reality here.
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 04:08 AM
Great post Gal. I was thinking about how to tackle this issue myself, but once I saw your piece I realized you had nailed it.
When you mentioned “It’s likely that the lack of clear information played a part in the low visibility of the bombing stories. The region where the massacre took place is remote and, unlike in Baghdad, there were no reporters or stringers on the ground for first-hand reporting,” my mind started wondering if we are now in a state of journalism where images, graphics and streaming video is required for reporting purposes.
If it had happened closer to Baghdad I’m sure we would have gotten more coverage, but that probably would have been because there was B roll footage and the talking heads would have something to show as they so poorly described the incident.
I know it sounds like a no-brainier, but is this one of the first examples where a lack of technology means a lack of importance in an editors room? Or was it that they were too lazy to grab a shot from Google Earth.
Love the writing.
Posted by Tim Shisler
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 at 05:24 PM