.When it comes to Iraq, however, the whole paradigm shifts to the right. The dead and maimed are faithfully hidden from view. No station would dare show a dead Marine or even an Iraqi national mutilated by an errant American bomb. That might undermine the patriotic objectives of our mission; to democratize the natives and enter them into the global economic system. Besides, if Iraq was covered like the tsunami, public support would erode more quickly than the Thai coastline, and Americans would have to buy their oil rather than extracting it at gunpoint. What good would that do? Good point. I was thinking the same thing. So much for the canard that our media unlike that in the rest of the world was just interested in sparing our tender sensibilities the horrors of our Iraqi caper.
Journalists lives are not in danger while covering the tsunami. Plus, it should be "were." Who's this guy's editor?
Do you really think the decision by the mass media not to show victims of the war on either side has to do with the safety of journalists.
Frankly complaining that Iraq isn't being covered like the tsunami makes me sick. While there can be a good debate about the US media's coverage of Iraq but the tsunami is a disaster almost unprecedented and deserves the amount of coverage. Its unseemly to politicize it by using its coverage to trumpet a perceived rightward media bias.
Its unseemly to politicize it by using its coverage to trumpet a perceived rightward media bias. I don't hink so. I think it is valid to compare the coverage of the two events. In terms of human misery and deaths the two events, the tsunami and the Iraq War, are pretty much on par. Of course the Iraq War was caused by Bush and the war supporters. This is not to say that the coverage of the tsunami is wrong. I think it is good sustained coverage. It is just that the coverage of the war is idological and biased. It is useful to show the hipocrisy of showing mangled dead bodies in one case and not the other. .
