May 13, 2004
Two, No Three Things
Two connected things stick in my mind today. If we're doing better in Iraq than the media tells us, what is going right? And if the media isn't telling us that stuff, what are they telling us instead, and why?
On the first point, Belmont Club has a post that, I think it's fair to say, reports stuff you won't see or hear about tonight on ABCNMSNBCBS. Extra credit question: if things turn out ok in the end in Iraq along the lines of the progress suggested by Belmont Club, use the press's coverage of the quagmire in Afghanistan and the terrible 3 day slog through a quagmire sandstorm on the way to Baghdad to suggest ways Big Media can avoid acknowledging they don't know how to cover a war.
On the second point, Glenn Reynolds says the Nicholas Berg story has been downplayed by Big Media at the expense of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, despite the public's obvious interest.
Some have said Berg's execution should be played on the national news too, especially since the prison photos have received such wide airplay. But I don't think the two can be compared. While I agree that the prison pictures have been overplayed, I don't think the reluctance to show Berg's execution itself is indicative of much. Had there been no prison scandal, the Berg video would still not have been shown. I don't see why, given the saturation coverage with pictures, etc. of the prison scandal, that in itself this makes a difference.
Third, (I know -- I said two points, but Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!), also from Reynolds, on media bias:
It's wrong to root for your country's defeat. Especially when that defeat would mean the death of innocents. And surely it's worse still when it's merely for domestic political advantage.Isn't it?
As he's fond of saying, read the whole thing.
Posted by Peter at May 13, 2004 06:49 PM