Reply
Thu 16 Oct, 2003 04:55 am
From today's New York Times. Deserves to be read and absorbed by everyone:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/opinion/16DOWD.html?th
"puts the casual back in casualty"
Can't access the link without being a subscriber. Can you give a synopsis of what it says?
Is this the article I've heard about the congressman who made the comment about the media devoting too much time to reporting about soldier deaths and not enough time reporting about improvements in the roads of Iraq?
Thanks Hobitbob. I've been hearing a lot about this on another board. This Congressman thinks it's more important for the news media to be supportive of the Bush administration than to report on attacks on U.S. troops.
President Bush and his administration voice public support for the troops, but at the same time they're cutting back on services for veterans. Bush can land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op, but in the eight months since the invasion of Iraq he's only found time to visit wounded troops on two occasions (although he's managed to make several dozen campaign fundraising dinners and speeches, and collect some US$83 million this year).
Somebody should really talk to those soldiers and tell them to stop getting killed; they're just not a very good story.
Butrflynet said "Somebody should really talk to those soldiers and tell them to stop getting killed; they're just not a very good story."
Two more, today, failed to get your message in time.
On one hand, I do agree with the congressman. There is a lot more to the story then just a body count. As you already hinted at, I'd like to know more about the circumstances of the deaths. That goes for all deaths in Ameriraq.
I'd like to know more about what the billions of dollars are being used for and whether any of it is reaching the pockets of the Iraqi citizens in the form of wages and commerce.
I'd like to know why the Bush administration feels there is a filter that prevents any good news about Iraq from being reported, especially since we pay the salaries of all these press secretaries and military media liasons to do exactly that. Why is the Bush administration having such a tough time getting air time on Clear Channel stations so their press secretaries can present all this good news?
Feel free to add to the list of questions you too would like to hear media reports about.