Posted on 10/26/2005 12:52:03 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
US military chiefs called on news organisations not to look at the 2,000th death in Iraq as a milestone in the conflict, yet many reported it as a politically significant landmark.
The Pentagon says the 2,000th death in Iraq is an "artificial" mark
The online edition of the Washington Post carried a story that noted: "The grim milestone was reached at a time of growing disenchantment over the war among the American public toward a conflict that was launched to punish Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for his alleged weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found."
CNN.com set the occasion in the context of political progress in Iraq.
It said: "The war in Iraq saw two milestones Tuesday that reflect the country's path toward democracy and its human toll as officials said the referendum on a draft constitution passed and the number of US military deaths reached 2,000."
The Huffington Post blog carried a column by Paul Rieckhoff, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Executive Director and Founder of Operation Truth, America's first and largest Iraq Veterans group.
'No end in sight'
He said the US public needs to hear more, not less about the fallen.
"The public needs to be more aware that, for our troops in harms' way, the situation has gotten more dangerous.
"But, it's tough to understand that when the casualty report consists of a tiny box at the bottom of the tenth page.
"Tomorrow, the 2,000 toll will be front page news. But the 2,001st, 2,002nd, 2,003rd, and so on deserve to be on the front page as well."
The Village Voice listed all 2,000 dead servicemen and women in an article headlined Village Voice, "2,000 Troops Dead and No End in Sight".
The Voice's correspondent Jarrett Murphy wrote: "Not all the 2,000 service members who have died in the Iraq war have been identified yet nor added to Pentagon statistics that describe the dead and how they perished.
"However, the most recent version of those numbers ... tells us something about the fallen.
"They were mostly white (73% of them) and fewer than 50 were women. More than half were younger than 24. California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York are the states that lost the most soldiers.
"But American Samoa, Vermont, the Virgin Islands, and North Dakota suffered the most deaths per capita."
'Tragic milestone'
Meanwhile, the blog site Newsbusters - which bills itself as exposing and combating liberal media bias - fired an early warning shot.
John Armor wrote: "Shortly, the 2,000th death of an American serviceman or woman will occur in Iraq. That will generate an orgy of coverage in the American press on how 'deadly' the war is.
"Sidebars will suggest that citizens are becoming "increasingly doubtful" about the conduct of the war. This Newsbusters article denounces that coverage as dishonest, in advance."
Citing the Iraq conflict as one of the least deadly US wars in history, he added: "In short, I condemn every reporter and every editor in every media source of all types who reports on the 2,000th American military death in Iraq as professionally incompetent, if they do not put those deaths in context with other American wars. "
Yet, in politics, the figures were viewed as a landmark.
MSNBC Online's report noted: "Minutes after the 2000th death was reported, the Democratic National Committee issued a news release calling the announcement a 'tragic milestone'.
"The Senate scheduled a moment of silence on the Senate floor, led by Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev, honouring fallen soldiers."
To the Editor of BBC On-line News
You quoted me at some length in your article published hours ago on BBC News On-Line, "US media react to Iraq toll." Yet you committed the very error I warned against in the quote you used. You did not put US deaths in Iraq in context of other US wars.
If 2,000 deaths were enough for the US to abandon a war as unduly costly, we would have abandoned the American Revolution in mid-course. We would be playing "God Save the Queen" before our World Series baseball games.
If 2,000 deaths were enough to make us quit a war, Britain would be under the rule of Germany because the US would have left you to your own devices. Take your pick, the Kaiser or Hitler, WW I or WW II. That's what valid comparisons mean, in news reporting.
There is another error in your article. You refer to one of the four websites I write for, Newsbusters, as "combating liberal media bias." That much is correct. But you fail to note that three of the other US media sources you cite are liberal ones -- CNN, Operation Truth, and the Village Voice.
What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Label one side politically, and you should label the other. Or you should skip the political labels entirely.
I read the British press regularly, and I understand that the BBC has had a problem of late with a liberal bias in its reporting, which has cost a number of its reporters and officers their posts. I add that I am one of the "guys in pajamas in front of their computers" as Joel Klein, the new head of CNN once called us bloggers.
We are the people who got Dan Rather dismissed from CBS and Eason Jordan dismissed from CNN, both for biased reporting We believe in facts, not bias.
The BBC should, in addressing the Iraq war deaths, American or British, put those sacrifices in the historical context of yours and our sacrificies in other wars. That is the honest way to present information on war deaths to your public. And of course the same comment applies to the American media in reporting here.
I thank you for printing some of my writing. I am honored to see my words on the BBC website. But it would be better if you did not quote me, but instead quoted the history books from prior wars.
Cordially,
John Armor /s/
Post Script: You have my permission to use this letter as you choose. I would also be willing to talk with any of your reporters who are following up on this story, if that would be useful to them and to you.
Pajamas Rule!
You da man!
Thats not going to sit too well with the Democrats, who accuse the military of sending po black folk over there to die or oil. /gag
The MSM's job is to sell news..........and every now and then they report it.
I'm guessing the chances they take you up on your offer are less than my chances of a date with Ann Coulter... :)
Why doesn't anyone think Malkin is hot... I mean damn!!!! I would grant you Coulter would take her in a fair fight, but she would fight dirty and with more spirit. ;-)
I read your article referenced by the BBC and it was powerful in it's honesty.
The old media will resist your advice at their continuing peril, most likely, but in the end they can't say they didn't see it coming.
John, we have not seen eye to eye on a few issues over the years here on FR, but I commend you for taking on this task.
Your commentary has been great! And spot on!
Keep it up! And thanks from a old fart Nam era vet.
Well I musta got real lucky and I don't mean talking with any Philbyesque Brit quill jockey heh heh heh.
Let me tell ya a lil sumpin about mybellemichelle heh heh heh
2000 soldier deaths is 2000 reasons to dance on their graves. The liberals (defeatists) dont give a damn about the military except to bash it.
Great response(s)...you are the best of all Congressmen!
Thanks for a good reply and invitation. Let's see if they follow through.
Thank you, sir!
The important thing is that large numbers of people look to the internet for information--and truth--and truth on the internet is having its impact.
Everyone knows that the BBC is biased. Like the American "Mainstream Newsmedia," even those who applaud it know that its veracity--and even its commitment to truth--are open to question.
Keyboard commandoes are pretty cavalier...
Of these 2,000 Iraq dead, there is no small number of those who died in accidents, not due to enemy fire.
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.