Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Missing the Point
Writing about critism that arose over the publication of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, Howard Kurtz writes the following in the Washington Post:
And one week later Kurtz writes the following about the beheading of Nick Berg:
I think he's got it backwards.
He believes showing the video of Nick Berg about to get beheaded is "handing the terrorists the propaganda victory they wanted"?
I don't think so. Reaction seems rather to have steeled American's resolve against these brutal killers. I've already heard the beheading compared directly to 9-11 in terms of the long lasting shocking effect it could have on Americans. No, the enemy has seriously misjudged us and our reaction to this atrocity.
On the other hand, the Abu Ghraib, while mild in comparison to the Berg video, was much more the kind of propaganda event the enemy could hope for. America was distracted from the actual war in Iraq and was turning inward on itself, wondering how we could have done this and debating what should be done to punish those who carried it out and how to prevent it in the future.
In the propaganda war, it is the behaviour and actions of Americans that cause us the most anxiety. We already know - or should know - what the enemy is capable of, has done, and plans to do. The shocking video of Berg's death only too starkly reminds us of that. But when Americans behave and act below the high standard that we set for ourselves, that is the worst propaganda.
In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib pictures, Iraq really was finally turning into a quagmire of the Vietnam type. How can Americans support this war, or any war, if our military does not live up to the hightest of standards?
Consider how seriously this matter has been. Not only are the responsible persons being prosecuted, but calls have been made for the Secretary of Defence to resign. The President, and the Secretaries of Defence and State have all apologized publicly for these events.
Yet, I wonder if any of the Senators going to a private viewing of still more Abu Ghraib pictures today felt just a little bit small and petty - especially those making political hay over them - in comparison to the absolute horror of the death of Nick Berg. It should certainly put things into perspective.
Back to the topic of media critism; one only needs to hear the words of Berg's killers to understand what was the propaganda victory for them - they stated that the killing of Berg was in revenge for what happened at Abu Ghraib. The investigation of Abu Ghraib has been ongoing since the beginning of 2004 - yet only after the media frenzy in the last week does something so horrific as Berg's killing occur.
Kurtz does make one point that I agree with, although I doubt he, or the rest of the mainstream media, really understand in what light it applies:
The media frenzy over the Abu Ghraib photos was a story with consequences. It fed the terrorists hate and led them to think that if those pictures could have such an effect on our country then just think what would happen if they kill and American on video tape. Terrible consequences. For Berg, for us, and eventually for the terrorists.
What would be the alternative: covering it up?
Sitting on the story so the U.S. military wouldn't look bad?
Why not suppress all negative news and just salute?
And one week later Kurtz writes the following about the beheading of Nick Berg:
Did the networks have to play the gruesome video, except for the final act, thus handing the terrorists the propaganda victory they wanted? A still shot, a snippet, and a description wouldn't have been enough?
I think he's got it backwards.
He believes showing the video of Nick Berg about to get beheaded is "handing the terrorists the propaganda victory they wanted"?
I don't think so. Reaction seems rather to have steeled American's resolve against these brutal killers. I've already heard the beheading compared directly to 9-11 in terms of the long lasting shocking effect it could have on Americans. No, the enemy has seriously misjudged us and our reaction to this atrocity.
On the other hand, the Abu Ghraib, while mild in comparison to the Berg video, was much more the kind of propaganda event the enemy could hope for. America was distracted from the actual war in Iraq and was turning inward on itself, wondering how we could have done this and debating what should be done to punish those who carried it out and how to prevent it in the future.
In the propaganda war, it is the behaviour and actions of Americans that cause us the most anxiety. We already know - or should know - what the enemy is capable of, has done, and plans to do. The shocking video of Berg's death only too starkly reminds us of that. But when Americans behave and act below the high standard that we set for ourselves, that is the worst propaganda.
In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib pictures, Iraq really was finally turning into a quagmire of the Vietnam type. How can Americans support this war, or any war, if our military does not live up to the hightest of standards?
Consider how seriously this matter has been. Not only are the responsible persons being prosecuted, but calls have been made for the Secretary of Defence to resign. The President, and the Secretaries of Defence and State have all apologized publicly for these events.
Yet, I wonder if any of the Senators going to a private viewing of still more Abu Ghraib pictures today felt just a little bit small and petty - especially those making political hay over them - in comparison to the absolute horror of the death of Nick Berg. It should certainly put things into perspective.
Back to the topic of media critism; one only needs to hear the words of Berg's killers to understand what was the propaganda victory for them - they stated that the killing of Berg was in revenge for what happened at Abu Ghraib. The investigation of Abu Ghraib has been ongoing since the beginning of 2004 - yet only after the media frenzy in the last week does something so horrific as Berg's killing occur.
Kurtz does make one point that I agree with, although I doubt he, or the rest of the mainstream media, really understand in what light it applies:
Stories have consequences. That's the way journalism works.
The media frenzy over the Abu Ghraib photos was a story with consequences. It fed the terrorists hate and led them to think that if those pictures could have such an effect on our country then just think what would happen if they kill and American on video tape. Terrible consequences. For Berg, for us, and eventually for the terrorists.
Comments:
Post a Comment
