One last swipe at the media

Okay, I'm not going to turn this blog into a cranky condemnation of the news industry, but this story is just too typical of the problem. Reuters story on today's developments in Najaf is so blatantly biased. Take a look, it begins:

U.S. forces intensified their war against Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr Friday, sending tanks into Najaf's vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its ancient tombs for the first time.

Explosions and gunfire rocked the city for hours and there was fighting around the main police station, less than a mile from some of the holiest Shi'ite shrines.

Note the term, "their war", implying that the US started it. Note that the description leads the reader to believe that a reckless, savage assault is underway with little regard to the surroundings: "sending tanks" to "blast" "ancient tombs".

At least seven U.S. tanks thrust deep into the cemetery, a city within a city covering several square kilometers (miles) where Shi'ites from all over the world wish to be buried within sight of Najaf's sacred shrines.

Those Americans! Insulting Shi'ites from all over the world! Let's hear what they have to say:

U.S. commanders say they will try not to encroach on holy sites, including the Imam Ali shrine where Sadr has taken sanctuary.

"We describe the holy city as the shrine and the cemetery and today we took some mortar fire from the cemetery and we acted against the mortar fire, very precisely, in and out," Major General Martin Dempsey, commander of U.S. forces in the area, told CNN.

He did not explain why tanks were sent into the cemetery on Friday when mortar attacks from it occur daily.

I guess Reuters thinks there's nothing wrong with a mortar attack every day. If it's against Americans.

The story is about the fighting in Najaf, but they cleverly manage to work in the Abu Ghraib story:

U.S. helicopters dropped leaflets urging militiamen to give up a day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a flying visit to Iraq as Washington tried to contain the prisoner abuse scandal.

Rumsfeld said the scandal would not wreck America's mission when he made a surprise visit to Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison where U.S. troops abused and sexually humiliated Iraqis.

The affair has shredded U.S. credibility among Iraqis. Some now question whether U.S. rule is much better than that of Saddam Hussein, who had thousands tortured at Abu Ghraib.

US credibility is now "shredded" says Al-Reuters, and this 'some' fellow -- who seems to show up when the reporter (who would not think of editorializing) wants to editorialize -- says the US is perhaps not better than Saddam's regime. It's in the news, it must be so!

And just in case you might still not be ready to head down to the nearest US government office to burn their flag, this 'news' article closes with this bit of propaganda, which has been known for a couple of days:

The father of beheaded American civilian Nick Berg added to the pressure on Bush after an Islamist Web site said al Qaeda militants in Iraq executed his son in revenge for the abuses.

"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," Michael Berg said.

Don't blame the cowardly monsters who killed an idealistic young man in cold blood, blame Bush.

This is just such a horrible, twisted report. And I didn't find out about it at some like-minded blog, I just came upon it on the Google news site when I was looking for something else. This is the everyday story that's being told. And it frightens and sickens me.

Posted by Bruce Gottfred at May 14, 2004 10:34 AM | TrackBack