Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 

War on Iraq archive by date:

«November 2009»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Use » and « to view other months.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Only Two Newspapers Put 4,000 US Troop Deaths on Front Page

Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone at 6:52 AM on March 25, 2008.


Meanwhile, Fox News would rather debate the significance of Bill Richardson's beard.
Post Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
22 COMMENTS
dover
caskets

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

RSS iconWar on Iraq RSS Feed

RSS iconMain AlterNet RSS Feed

Get War on Iraq in your
mailbox!

 


The world the media sees simply isn’t the world as it is. That’s axiomatic here 5 years after the beginning of the Iraq War where the media served as cheerleaders. (Perhaps they were following Bush’s lead, he having served as a cheerleader at Yale.) Katharine Zaleski of Huffington Post notes that there were only two newspapers who featured the story about 4,000 US soldiers dead in Iraq on their front pages. Here’s a bit of her article at HuffPo:

It’s a sad day for America’s media when the tragic milestone of 4,000 soldiers’ deaths is reported and it appears that just two papers — yes two — place it across their front pages. After a search through today’s front pages, I found that The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Daily News in New York were the only papers to give their entire front pages to honoring the men and women killed in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times gave a top quarter of their front to a feature called “Stories Of The Fallen.” If I’ve missed a paper that featured the deaths across it’s entire front page then I welcome any corrections in the comment string of this post.

This was a big story, and Karen thinks the media has downplayed it. Downplayed? I’m not so sure entire front pages need to be devoted to the story of the 4,000 death milestone, but certainly this is a time to look back at the criminality that took us into Iraq in the first place, causing us to ignore the crimes of Osama bin Laden. The media surely has downplayed the notion that 97% of those deaths came after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo-op on that aircraft carrier nearly five years ago. And they’re downplaying Dick Cheney’s response to 4,000 American deaths in Iraq — he notes how those soldiers were volunteers, dodging the question of the wisdom of sending them there under false pretenses. And I’m yet to see any story on how many Iraqis have died due to President Bush’s misadventure in Iraq.



Of course, today’s Philadelphia Inquirer features the 4,000 death story pretty prominently, but in a context that highlights what President Bush thinks is leadership. There’s not a whole lot of critique here as the Inquirer lets Bush’s words that the 4,000 dead were “not in vain” stand. Perhaps we can make it that those deaths are not in vain, but it is far from sure that those deaths were necessary, one of those conditions I would put on “not in vain.” Man, Bush seems in another world, and the Inquirer makes no comment about his words:

“One day people will look back at this moment in history and say, ‘Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come,’ ” Bush said after a State Department briefing about long-term diplomacy efforts.
“I have vowed in the past, and I will vow so long as I’m president, to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain - that, in fact, there is an outcome that will merit the sacrifice,” Bush said.

At least FauxNews has it right. FauxNews is focused like a laser on Bill Richardson’s beard. Man, it is impossible to do a satire of FauxNews, as you couldn’t write anything as stupid as what they actually report.

Digg!

Tagged as: media, iraq, fox news, richardson, us military casualties

Steven Reynolds is a regular blogger for the All Spin Zone


Return to War on Iraq  » Post Tools: email EMAIL print PRINT 22 COMMENTS PERMALINK
Also in War on Iraq
Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.		 House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.		 Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
bush-backed!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Mar 25, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the media shills promote the government agenda by non-reporting, under reporting or offering only distractions.

making the pie higher since january 2001! is your children learning? it's hard to put food on your family, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rocky Mountain News?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Mar 25, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Rocky Mountain News reported the 4000 dead on their front page? That is surprising, since that paper is a Right-Wing rag.
I know they will now get LOTS of letters to the editor complaining about how reporting the bad news "harms the troops", and claiming that the paper is going liberal, if past letters are any guide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Vain
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blackie4aces on Mar 25, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Did not die in vain." Such a familiar refrain. Lifted, of course, as it has been so many times in the past from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. At least criminals admit when they are robbing a bank that they were in fact robbing a bank, and not claiming the act as an endeavor to bring freedom and democracy to the tellers. As misguided as the attack upon a sovereign country was, what followed was not, for the idea was to systematically loot Iraq. And this was exactly what happened and had more than a great deal to do with the resistance than many other factors. This is what Bush claims history will exonerate?

As Iraq's economy was dismantled, thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost in the privatizing scheme-i.e. the theft of Iraqi industry by Western profiteers. The ideological free marketeers, Jerry Bremmer foremost among them, accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Much of Iraq's social safety net was done away with. Reconstruction money, twenty billion of the total of about 73 billion belonging to Iraq, was siphoned off to Western companies, mostly American, which did not even see fit to hire Iraqis, but instead imported labor from all over the world. This is what our American military bled and died for, what they are still bleeding and dying for.

George Bush was never more than an idiot figurehead for a criminal cabal within his administration. There were, however, the people's representatives who allowed it all to happen. Apparently it is overwhelmingly easy for the elite power structure to dismiss the death and suffering of the "cannon fodder" class, reduced according to some to a "metric" of success (Mc Cain's casualty metric). Who, and how many, will become part of the unlucky continued statistical success? How well I remember the "metric" of a war fought over thirty years ago. It was the body count. Not ours, but theirs. As it turned out it was a faulty one.

Four thousand men and women no longer have lives to live. 10-15 thousand have wounds so severe that their lives will be significantly altered forever. Some of these will have almost no lives at all. So easy it seemed for the pols in House and Senate to cast a vote. Some (or most?) did not even bother to read the intelligence report their votes were supposedly based on. 97 pages, 4000 dead, 30,000 wounded. Were 97 pages such a chore?

All of the guilty will retire in comfort, health, and wealth. They will spend the rest of their lives living the lie that all of this was necessary and motivated by only the highest of ideals. Some will be with us in public life for some time to come. Hopefully they truly believe in a god as they proclaim so constantly, for in their private moments they at least will have the fear of hell as a frequent visitor until the end of their sorry days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In Vain Posted by: master09
4,000 TROOPS? Don't you mean SOLDIERS?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tonirae on Mar 25, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steve Benen's article correctly states 4,000 soldiers have died in Iraq since the US attack on Iraq in March 2003.

However, Alternet's HEADLINE uses the euphemism for soldier commonly used by the Bush administration and by Mainstream Media, "troops."

Please, I know it's shorter and all, but, please do your best to represent the actual people who play the important role of soldier in Iraq and around the world by calling them soldiers rather than "troops" which used to mean certain groups of soldiers.

Play not into the Bush administration's hands by desensitizing your audience by using "troops" for the INDIVIDUALS who have volunteered to acquiesce to the Bush administration's attack on Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve bullets and Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith et. al. deserve
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thekidde on Mar 25, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
20 years in prison along with the CEOs, CFOs, presidents, vice presidents, etc. of all of the war profiteers. Actually, the war profiteers deserve bullets too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Inexcusable headline.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oregoncharles on Mar 25, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It completely misrepresents the article, which is about the 2 that gave the story their ENTIRE front page. In fact, a great many papers headlined it, even the Corvallis Gazette-Times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Inexcusable headline. Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Inexcusable headline. Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» I totally agree Posted by: realist
The NY Times did just fine with their story
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jiclemens on Mar 25, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile, Fox News is standing up and refusing, REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW and pay its fines for showing offensive, OFFENSIVE material on screen! They're getting as brazen as the executive branch now. Fox and the FCC are idiots but I secretly would like to see them get away with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4,000, NOT QUITE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fearn on Mar 26, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Americans, who have some idea, are asked how many died in the Vietnam war they say about 60,000. Apparently future Americans, when asked about deaths in the Iraq war will say about 4,000+. The actual numbers are closer to 3,000,000 in the Vietnam war and 1,500,000+ in Iraq.
All of them needless deaths and wasted lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the Iraqi...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidg on Mar 26, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
dead, maimed and displaced? anybody counting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and the Iraqi... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Troops... Troopers?... isnt that Army specific?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 26, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank God that the Air force, Navy and Marines haven't lost a single serviceman in theater since the advent of this disaster 5 years ago!

another poorly written article...
editors are slackin I think but I will give them the benefit of the doubt...
at least they're getting the word out were as the MSM has totally ignored the story for 4 years now!

so sad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Hawaii Tribune Herald had a front page headline - 4000 dead soldiers in Iraq
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jacoba on Mar 28, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am new at this but our local newspaper in the backwoods of the Hawaiian Islands had the 4000 dead servicemen headline so more than 2 newspapers have headlined the event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ISRAEL'S PRESENCE IN MID EAST IS SORELY MISSED
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Mar 30, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the war [Indianization] in Iraq is all for Israel, why are all the caskets coming home draped in the American Flag? Where are the Israeli flags?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]