EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Bad PR of Dead Civilians
Afghan airstrikes and the corporate media
Early reports of a massive U.S. attack on civilians in western Afghanistan last week (5/5/09) 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 (Extra! Update, 8/07), 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 (5/6/09), "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 (5/8/09), 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 (5/6/09) 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 (5/6/09) 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 U.S. 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."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

18 Comments so far
Show AllI guess you all know McKiernan has been rightfully relieved of his command.
One Point for Life.
One for Karzai and Obama
Now if our Congress was as democratic and wise as the Afghan Parliament we may have Peace.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for any country."
Herman Goering to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg, 18 April, 1946
I rest my case.
The truth is also the greatest enemy of the (coordinatorist) left, which blacklists parecon.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
In connection with this incident, and duly reported in our press, one American military spokesperson said that the reports of civilian deaths given from the Afghan side were "over-exaggerated." So are we to deduce that if the reports were "under-exaggerated" they would be true?
Orwell must spin in his grave like a bird in a rotisserie oven.
And the corporate media wonder why they are losing market share and credibility every day. Their lies are becoming all too predictable.
And, so it goes.
150 people are massacred by the US military, and the only sympathetic reporting that the contemptible corporate media can muster over how the elites got embarrassed by it. I guess the suffering of actual victims are utterly unworthy of mention much less any sympathy.
Oh yes, Amy Goodman, with a listenership comprising 0.0001% of the US population reported from the the victims perspective.
And so, why should we wonder, under this modern media mileau, why USAn's in general have become such uncaring, callous, self-absorbed, vile scumbags with hardly a redeeming quality to be found?
Media coverage such as that cited above, especially:
"Afghan Civilian Deaths Present U.S. With Strategic Problem" (Washington Post)
gives the impression that the media are right there in the Pentagon planning rooms involved in decisions and moving pins around maps. It is easy to imagine oneself like a croupier, pushing plastic soldiers across tables with the generals - squinting through the cigar smoke at the imagined outcomes of each move. This impression is in one sense correct - except the media is merely another weapon (perhaps the most important) on the board - to be deployed as the true strategists choose.
By extension this gives the public who consume such hard-boiled fiction the impression that they are also somehow engaged in the same project. Getting reports from the front. Worrying about nuggety strategic problems, biting their lips over a sneaky thrust from Afghanistan's subtle but mighty propaganda machine. It is then seductively easy to accept this flattery and begin to look at civilian deaths and blatant mass murder as through the eyes of a military commander stripped of all human and moral considerations devoted only to 'the mission'. Perhaps even with the prurient glazed stares of a Roman audience looking down on the massacre in the Colosseum cheered on by the sociopathic courtiers on Fox - such is the soulless decadence of much Western discourse today. This then makes perfect sense of the general public's blanket disregard of the crimes of their representatives - the government and the military.
This complements the Goebblesian quotations above and casts Americans, as someone else on this site recently observed as the new 'good Germans'. Is there any way to reclaim our humanity?
And the AP reports the USA soldiers are "caught in a firefight"; as if they are carrying all those arms for exercise.
Sioux Rose
CANDIDE: Your well-chosen words paint the macabre picture brilliantly.
It does seem there is an increasing insanity in man;
Avoidance and disregard is the real virus that has reached pandemic proportions.
Symptoms to be on the watch for:
1)apathy
2)lack of compassion ie: anger at those victimized.
3)generalized pain but esp felt in heart region
4)deliberate avoidance of actions and pain inflicted upon others by the US Gov.
5)delusional belief same (gov) will be there or save you and your family.
6) Odd practice of giving perpetrators what they need in order to carry out
horrendous actions against other human beings.
this is a list that could be expanded....
Swine flu?
And people wonder how Israel can be so callous in relation to the Palestinian people! They simply followed the lead of their lead from their mother- the USA!!!
For years the USA would have no rapprochement with Vietnam- not until and unless they apologized for the the enormous number of American deaths and casualties they caused. When the first soldier was killed in the recent Iraq invasion, GW got on the TV and shed a tear for him- without a single word of sadness in relation to the 1000's of innocent Iraqis that had just been blown into oblivion by US bombs. And the US media is in lock step with this measure of one's worth. If you're from a non-Aryan country, then the ratio is no less than 1000 of your dead = one dead American. And many Americans find nothing unusual about this. Well folks, guess what? It is EXACTLY that same formula that is being applied in relation to YOU in this economic meltdown! Saving one rich CEO is worth more than saving 1000 peons whose lifetime total income is less than one day's income for that CEO. One can only hope that the media meltdown begins soon. The newspapers are on the way out already. Hopefully the radio and TV media will follow.
No Afghan civilians have died at American hands. They are on vacation in the Barbados, drinking pina coladas and listening to reggae music, said Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gunga Din.
It's the inherent flaw of counter-insurgency war itself that is at issue here. Indiscriminant bombing completely undermines the strategic goal-" nation-building"- because it alienates the sympathies of the people you are trying to save. The alternative- more or less the old "bite and hold tactics" undertaken piecemeal with carefully coordinated ground detachments manifestly gives "opponents" the tactic advantage, the bedrock of "guerilla war" and leads to much higher "allied" casualties, an anthema to the "bloodless wars" the political situation often demands.
The condundrum points to the inescapable flaw in Gen. Petreus's plan. It would be better to appoint someone who has opposed the "nation-building" paradign as "military malpractice" from the get-go, get our troops out and let the Afghan and other regional players settle "the problem" as best they can. Surely the flukish success of a tiny corpuscule of "Islamic radicals" on 9/11 can not be all that great an obstacle to a little bit of clear thinking on the matter.
Once again we see how the opposition ( if you can call FAIR that) talks beside the point and demands from the corporate media what they themselves will not provide.
“Indiscriminant bombing completely undermines the strategic goal-" nation-building"- because it alienates the sympathies of the people you are trying to save.”
Are you kidding? Killing people alienates their sympathies? It impedes the work of building a nation for the army? This is fascinating. Jesus dude, apart from your inability to spell I think you have managed to misunderstand the essence of this article and the issues involved in Afghanistan and U.S. foreign policy almost perfectly and also embody the kind of wrong thinking that has led us to this impasse. That is some achievement in such a short letter. Well done. Let’s hope my reply doesn’t alienate your sympathy for me – but hey, at least I’m not bombing you and your family to smithereens. This is "bloodless" and that, strategically, has got to count for something eh?
Peace.
By the way, the activities of the NGO's undermines the strategic goal of "nation-building" as well: their alien culture, high salaries, luxury accomodations, personal secuity and unavoidable connections to corrupt officialdom.
Obviously there are "strategic goals" apart from "nation-building- some kind of hegomonic domination of South west Asia, the imposition of neo-liberal economics, countering the rise of "chinese influence" ,oil & gas, not neglecting the fallacy of "fighting terrorism abroad rather than at home" etc etc etc. Never-the-less, it would be nice if "opponents" of the war somtimes would actually engage the debate about what exactly would constitute an effective military strategy for the "nation-building" project or at least pointing out the complete impossibility of finding one. This is certainly something that Obama would profit hearing about.
Sorry if my spelling is bad, I'm rather rushed for time and besides that, not much is really accomplished by engaging in the indecisive and largely irrelevant debates and conversations on this site. Of course, it's nice to be able to have a place to congratulate ourselves in public.
FAIR is at again getting out the truth despite the US mainstream media circus routine, proving that "Truth crushed to earth will rise again."
AD