Usually media coverage of air strikes targeting terrorist HVTs in Afghanistan have a headline that reads: “US AIRSTRIKES KILL 18 CIVILIANS.” Now, we are getting some.. nuance that lays bare the actual tactics that have been used by the Taliban for quite a while: “US official: Taliban sought wedding party deaths”
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Taliban fighters held a wedding party captive and fired on U.S. forces in an attack designed to draw U.S. airstrikes on civilians and stoke anti-American sentiment, a U.S. official said Friday citing “firsthand” reports.
The official declined to give further details of the reported events leading to the U.S. bombing Monday in the southern Afghan village Wech Baghtu, where dozens of civilians and insurgents were killed.
I like this line in the article:
Insurgents have always used populated areas for cover in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
They have?? Really?? Why, all this time I thought that.. well, never mind. It will be very interesting to see how our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be portrayed if we had the media on our (America’s) side for once.
Hmmm. Am I too cinical in thinking that the A.P. is preparing the media battlespace for when “their” candidate takes over in a couple of months time, having made urgent action in Afghanistan a campaign promise? Prediction; military action started by Obama, anywhere, will get more favourable coverage at Associated Press.
Which oddly enough might even be useful, if the new administration surprises me and shows it understands the current war (I’ll at least give them a chance to prove themselves…. complaining can wait awhile….).
Funny, THAT’S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE THE PAST SIX YEARS.
They’ll explain a little more of the nuance, to be sure, now that Obama is ascending the throne. That way, if he fails, they can go back and explain the “complex” situation and how all the “moving parts” interact in such an unpredictable way, to cover for him.
Now, the girl from this peaceful institute for civilian innocents, or whatever it is, wants to create a high-level Pentagon position just for civilian casualties. Yeah, just civilian casualties, in isolation, all by itself, because it is a discrete, finite problem of war that Obama can “fix”.
Let me guess. It’ll be run by lawyers.
AP, and all the rest, have less honor and integrity than the prostitute lingering on 14th and I Street. Both are bought and paid for, but at least she’s providing an essential service.
“Let me guess. It’ll be run by lawyers.”
*shudder* You’re probably right.
Reminds me of that scene in The Simpsons where Lionel Hutz says “can you imagine a world without lawyers, Mr Simpson?” and we then see a fantasy image of lots of blissfully happy Springfield residents enjoying life. :-)
…if we had the media on our (America’s) side for once.
Because, you know, “the media” are traitors. Just like the military IS Charles Graner, and American soldiers ARE sadists.
“The media” includes everyone from Frank Rich to Rush Limbaugh, and everything from Democracy Now to The O’Reilly Factor and the Military Times.
The taliban used civilians as cover?! No really? I thought we were the bad ones
yes I am being sarcastic
>>if we had the media on our (America’s) side for once.
Interesting that when the reporters are “embedded” with the troops and showing victory on victory they’re doing a fantastic job BUT if they make comment the other way they’re on the other side. Also, there are other countries besides America on “our” side.
Have a good day
Interestingly, it tends to be the ones who aren’t in/have never been to the war zones who are most critical. I remember at least one instance where a reporter went to some hot spot and was embedded with US soldiers, started sending home much more positive reports, and they were modified/discarded because it was felt the reporter had “gone native” and was no longer reporting accurately. Rather than the other possibility, that they were actually telling the truth and the people back home had a distorted view of the reality on the ground.
I don’t watch/read/listen to any traditional media so I have little idea how biased they may or may not be. I’ll just say that the few times I’ve been exposed to TV news and newspapers (seeing headlines advertised while walking down the street, or when visiting family and they are watching TV) I’ve been blown away by how I can watch 30 seconds of TV or read a single headline and I get the impression that the reporters were (a) clueless and (b) doing their utmost to make the situation seem worse than it actually was. So.. OK that’s a tiny sample, but if (as I’m so often told) there’s no such thing as media bias, why do I hardly ever accidentally see accurate reporting rather than what seems to be basically propaganda?
>>Interestingly, it tends to be the ones who aren’t in/have never been to the war zones who are most critical.
Somalia, East Timor, Rwanda, Congo, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo to name a few. On the “good” side and the bad. Just me and maybe an interpreter or bodyguard. I never had air support, armor, or a half dozen buddies to give fire support. I freelanced so I have no affiliation. You buy my stories as they are or no sale. I now write travel articles for magazines so my wife can sleep when I am working.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear, I wasn’t really speaking of (or thinking of) freelancers. I respect freelancers a lot more than I do the network news guys.
I don’t think you’re “on the other side” if you make something short of a glowing report. However, I start to suspect that some people are on the other side when they report made up stories, or stories that came from the enemy with no verification, or make reports which are directly contrary to those coming from people who I trust like Bill Roggio or Michael Yon. Again I’m speaking mostly of those in the employ of newspapers and TV networks rather than true independents as I think the independents are much less likely to have some kind of an agenda.
Sorry but it’s one of those once bitten, twice shy deals. I wasn’t even alive when Walter Cronkite made his famous broadcast but it still discredits journalists to this day.