July 17, 2005


Just stepped out to the corner deli to get today's Sunday Times. I expected that the story that 58 people were blown to death yesterday in Iraq--more even than in the London attacks of 7/7--would get front page coverage. Instead, the NYT places it on page A5--and then on the bottom half below the continuation of a front-pager about U.S. counter-insurgency tactics in the town of Qabr Abed. I have to say, this is quite a stunning statement, isn't it? The bombings, I guess, have become so routine that the death of nearly 60 individuals in a single attack doesn't even warrant front page treatment? One can derive many conclusions from this, I guess, but none of them are particularly flattering...

UPDATE: Death toll now 90 and counting...people in D.C., did this make the front page of the WaPo? Just curious.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: A fix in the late edition. Good. 'Their' lives matter too, yes?

Posted by Gregory at July 17, 2005 04:50 PM | TrackBack (0)

Front page column right in this morning's WaPo

Posted by: DC Loser at July 17, 2005 05:09 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

New York Times, Late Edition has the story front page column right.

Posted by: Bill Anderson at July 17, 2005 07:09 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Gosh Greg, isn't highlighting these stories of death and destruction in Iraq - I think the daily average is around 50 dead ( including those gunned down at check points and along roadsides by US troops with itchy trigger fingers. God only knows how many wounded) - playing into "defeatism"?

Surprising that the "liberal media" doesn't have this stuff front and center every morning. It is their pinko goal to undermine the troops morale and all, right?

I mean what would Jerkoff (Cherkoff? or whatever his name is) say?

Shouldn't we be emphasizing the positive things happening in Iraq? What with front page stories about death and destruction people might get the idea that there is a big messy war on over there. They might even get the idea that things aren't going so well for us; that after two years the road from/to the airport isn't even't secure yet. They might get the idea that we will never succeed and that after ten years of deaths and dismemberments and a trillion dollars spent we may not be further ahead. They may ask for a withdrawal time table......

Nope, best to bury those stories somewhere near the dear Abby column.

Good God man, have you lost your mind?

Posted by: avedis at July 17, 2005 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Suicide terror targets public opinion through disproportionate coverage in the media. In this one case The Times declined to give it disproportionate coverage. Good for them.

Posted by: Tom Paine at July 18, 2005 05:34 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

60 Iraqi lives don't matter to most newspapers. If there had been a couple of soldiers in the body count, then it would have been front page news.

I think it is more than a "their lives matter too" trend, although the press' unbalanced coverage of Iraqi casualties is pretty glaring (US troop collateral damage--front page; terrorists deliberate targeting of civilians--ho hum). One reason this is getting played down so much is certain organs would rather trumpet the current "the U.S. has made them mad and turned them into terrorist" meme. If that were the case, then those we angered enough to do something would not be targeting oil installations, mosques, children, civilians shopping.

Posted by: ken at July 19, 2005 05:36 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
The City
Western Europe
United Kingdom
Central and Eastern Europe
East Asia
South Korea
Middle East
B.D. In the Press
Syndicate this site:


Powered by