September 30, 2012 8:20 PM
2000 Afghanistan deaths - press gives Obama a pass
Anyone else remember 2005, when Iraq military deaths reached 2000? This article from that day is proof that the press is giving Obama a free ride - after years of brutalizing Bush - allowing him to get away with NOT CARING whether our troops live or die. An utter, utter disgrace!At 2,000, Iraq's Military Deaths Got the Media's Full Attention
When the death toll of Americans in Iraq reached 1,000 back in September 2004, The Omaha World-Herald ran a respectful article in a single column down the right side of its front page. "A grisly milestone reached in Iraq," read the headline.
Omaha World-HeraldIn a striking contrast with last year, The Omaha World-Herald announced the latest death figure with outsize boldness.
The Roster of the Dead
Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, about 2,000 American service members have died.
Last week, by contrast, when the roster of American dead reached 2,000, The World-Herald displayed that stark number in large type at the center of its front page, above an article and three photographs showing the war's human toll, including a bank of tombstones.
Other papers, too, that had dutifully acknowledged the first 1,000 dead seemed to give greater emotional weight to the loss of the second 1,000. Single columns gave way to feature layouts. Roll calls of names were supplemented with pictures, ages and hometowns. Elaborate graphics and maps charted the who, when, where and how. Writers wrestled with the why.
"Military toll tops 1,000," The Boston Globe's headline reported last time. For the second 1,000, the approach was more personal: "Grieving families find little peace."
Television - where a new survey found that coverage of the war has diminished - also seemed to give fuller expression last week to the 2,000 mark than it had to the 1,000.
How to explain the difference? Highlighting deaths during war can be perceived as a political statement, as Lincoln learned when he was accused of playing on people's emotions with the Gettysburg Address. Were editors last week trying to compensate for having ignored Iraq lately? Was it a reaction to the growing scale of casualties, though the numbers are still small by the standards of other wars? Or was it implicit criticism of the war itself?
Read more at the 10/31/2005 New York Times
Posted in Media Bias | Permalink
