Posted on 06/15/2004 11:19:03 PM PDT by kattracks
June 16, 2004 -- THE video only lasts four minutes or so — grue some scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over. Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade — all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.
But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.
In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.
No surprise, since no newscast would air the videos of Nick Berg and Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl getting decapitated, or of U.S. contractors in Fallujah getting torn limb from limb by al Qaeda operatives.
But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?
"Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose," says AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, who helped host the screening of the Saddam video.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."--Ted Kennedy/May 2004
One of the most descriptively horrible things I've read recently was about a stoning in Saudi Arabia witnessed by a Westerner. Here's a link of the FR thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152907/posts
Great find, posting on my site. It is a pity that it should be so difficult to find such an explosive story.
I remember switching from FNC to CNN when the Nick Berg story broke [to see the difference in coverage]. On FNC, there was less than a 10 minute wait, plus the crawl on the bottom of the screen. On CNN there was an hour wait until the Berg story was aired. While I waited, CNN aired 3 separate stories on the Abu Gharaib 'scandal' -- I wish I were making it up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133594/posts?page=259#259
Indeed, the Nick Berg story has dropped off the radar screen while the panty-on-the-face story persists to this day.
[ps: The Voice of America should be broadcasting those videos non-stop in the Middle East.]
Large, still shots from this video should be posted on Kennedy's Congressional office doors.
More excerpts:
...
In this era, a photo is everything. We highlight U.S. prisoner abuse because the photos aren't too offensive to show. We downplay Saddam's abuse precisely because it's far worse — so we can't use the photos. And that sets the stage for remarks like Sen. Ted Kennedy's claim that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under "U.S. management."
...
Media analysts like Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler admit it sounds "sanctimonious" to justify publishing prison abuse photos — but not al Qaeda beheading videos — in the name of showing "the reality of war." But that is just what he did.
...
Reporters have to face up to the fact that right now, if we highlight the wrongs that Americans commit but not — out of squeamishness — the far worse horrors committed by others, we become propaganda tools for the other side.
...
Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs — and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America.
They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures — and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib — with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men.
What a specious article.
The obvious reason is that US forces commiting bad acts is simply more newsworthy than Saddam's thugs doing far worse acts.
If I may draw an anology, Kennealy's 'Shindler's Ark' worked because the protaganist was a Nazi, working directly against the basic tenet of Nazism.
In the same way, the grusome activities of Saddam's gangster cohorts really come as no surprise because that is what he is infamous for. We've all read horrific accounts over the years, so from the news agency's point of view there is really no story.
US soldiers abusing prisoners is big news because it is not what our armed forces are all about. It is unexpected. No news agency anywhere would pass up this story, no matter what their political bent.
There is no insidious conspiracy of left-wing media, all the papers are doing is adding value to their advertising space by increasing their circulation. To do this they print sensational stories.
"Man bites dog"
And whether they realize it or not - in doing so they are working against the good guys. I think the author is trying to communicate to other - more clueless - reporters on their own level(maybe), and for that, I think it's a good article.
Rush has been quoting from this article today. BTTT!!
They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures — and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib — with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men."
There you have it. President Bush isn't just fighting Osama, world-wide islamofanaticism, back stabbing european socialists and facists or democrats at home but he must contend with a hate-America MSM that is hellbent on defeating him. We must not allow them to succeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.