Missing war news and George Carlin
A reader called today to protest our lack of coverage of the war in Iraq. Not a word, she said. She contrasted that to the lengthy story and large photo on Page A2 reporting the death of comedian George Carlin
Actually, 57 words about the Iraq war appeared, on Page A6 in the form of the third item in the World Digest report. She laughed when I pointed out that “story,” which she had overlooked in reading the paper.
(”A U.S.-allied Iraqi council member sprayed American troops with gunfire Monday, killing two soldiers and wounding three and an interpreter, Iraqi authorities and witnesses said. The attack occurred minutes after they emerged from a weekly joint meeting on reconstruction in Madain, Iraq, southeast of Baghdad. U.S. troops shot and killed him at the scene.”)
It’s very easy to overlook such a short short. And her overall point is valid: Day in and day out, the war doesn’t get a lot of attention from the Post-Dispatch and other media. Larger developments merit longer stories, like the status of training Iraqi security forces and progress in establishing a functioning government. But actual accounts of the fighting tend to get short shrift, unless there’s multiple soldier or civilian deaths or massive injuries.
Families with soldiers fighting in Iraq must be incensed with our performance, she said.
Thanks for affirming what readers have been saying all along and the Post smugly denied - that you only print stories about the war when there are US and civilian casualties you can gloat over. Context doesn’t matter. There have been multiple political, social, and military successes in Iraq this past year that editors at the Post have conspicuously declined to report.
Families and friends of service men and women are incensed and not just at the lack of overall coverage. What many find insulting is that the press never asks what a soldier or Marine was doing when they were injured or killed. The stories makes it seem like all they do is stand around waiting to be shot. Why the Post and other news outlets refuse to provide necessary context is understandable from their standpoint. If it became widely known that many Americans have been injured and killed while in the act of protecting Iraqi civilians from militants, delivering medicines and school supplies, or clearing hidden bombs from public spaces, support would turn 180 degrees in favor of the mission. No way is a disgracefully hostile press going to let that happen.
If in 1943 an American newspaper had been callous enough to continuously run a graph showing US and Allied casualties in the North African front, Readers would have justifiably called for publisher’s heads and they may very well have been brought up on charges of aiding the enemy.