|
WORD COUNT
695
MAY 20, 2009
DEAD
CIVILIANS MAKE BAD PR – by Peter Hart
Early
reports of a massive U.S. attack on civilians in western Afghanistan
earlier this month hewed to a familiar corporate media formula,
stressing official U.S. denials and framing the scores of dead civilians
as a PR setback for the White House's war effort.
Scanning
the headlines gave a sense of the media's view of the tragedy: "Civilian
Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War" (“New
York Times”,
5/7/09), "Claim of Afghan Civilian Deaths Clouds U.S. Talks" (Wall
Street Journal,
5/7/09), "Afghan Civilian Deaths Present U.S. With Strategic
Problem" (Washington
Post,
5/8/09).
As is
frequently the case with such incidents, the primary fallout would seem
to be the damage done to U.S. goals. The
“New York
Times”
reported that civilian deaths "have been a decisive factor in souring
many Afghans on the war." As
CBS
Evening News
anchor Katie Couric put it, "Reports of these civilian casualties could
not have come at a worse time, as the Obama administration launches its
new strategy to eradicate the Taliban and convince the Afghan people to
support those efforts." Other outlets used very similar language to
explain why the timing was "particularly sensitive" (Washington
Post,
5/7/09) or "awkward" (Associated
Press,
5/7/09) for the Obama administration.
While it
is important to be cautious about early reports of such atrocities, many
accounts played up U.S. denials. Some anonymous U.S. military officials
vigorously denied that they were responsible, instead blaming the deaths
on Taliban grenades and use of "human shields."
The
“New York
Times”
reported (5/7/09):
Defense
Department officials said late Wednesday that investigators were looking
into witnesses’ reports that the Afghan civilians were killed by
grenades hurled by Taliban militants, and that the militants then drove
the bodies around the village claiming the dead were victims of an
American airstrike. The initial examination of the site and of some of
the bodies suggested the use of armaments more like grenades than the
much larger bombs used by attack planes, said the military official, who
requested anonymity because the investigation was continuing.
It is
troubling to see an anonymous source given so much space to make such an
elaborate case, seemingly based on little evidence. By the next day's
edition of the
Times
(5/8/09),
military sources appeared to be backtracking: "Initial American military
reports that some of the casualties might have been caused by Taliban
grenades, not American airstrikes, were 'thinly sourced,' a Pentagon
official in Washington said Thursday, indicating that he was uncertain
of their accuracy." That "thin" sourcing was good enough for most of the
press, though, and similar instances continued.
On
CNN's
“American
Morning,”
anchor Kiran Chetry announced, "CNN
is learning that the Taliban may have been using women, children and men
as human shields during U.S. air strikes earlier this week." That would
stretch the meaning of "learning" quite a bit, since
CNN's
reporter from Afghanistan, Stan Grant, had little to report beyond vague
official assertions ("We're still waiting for a formal statement, a
formal report to come down from the U.S. military here in Kabul").
CNN
Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr had already floated the "much
grimmer scenario" coming from U.S. officials--that the Taliban had
killed civilians and then paraded them around the area.
On May 8,
the “Washington
Post”
was stressing the notion that, whatever the truth, Afghans are going to
believe what they want: "The truth of what happened in Farah may be less
important than what the Afghan people believe took place in the remote
western region. [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates said that a cornerstone
of the Taliban campaign is to blame civilian deaths on U.S. troops."
CBS's
Couric likewise posited to U.S. Army General David McKiernan: "Whatever
the outcome, rumors alone that many civilians were killed by U.S.
airstrikes--that is very problematic, particularly at this moment in
time." Couric closed her report by paraphrasing McKiernan's assessment:
"The general added, because it takes time to uncover the truth, the
United States is at a distinct disadvantage in the propaganda war with
the Taliban, who often blame the United States for any civilian deaths."
It is
difficult to see the corporate media's credulous, cursory coverage of
these killings as evidence of a U.S. public relations "disadvantage."
--
Peter Hart
is an analyst with the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In
Reporting). FAIR is the New York City-based, national media watch group
that offers well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship. For
more information, visit:
www.fair.org. – A photo of Peter Hart is available
CLICK HERE
#####
|
