In the wake of the Quran-burning by American troops at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, protests continued to escalate, and the death toll mounted. In the process, three U.S. blind spots became obvious.
One is that of the U.S. media, whose coverage simply underscores – and amplifies – the stunning cluelessness that triggered the protests in the first place. Professional journalists are obliged to answer five questions: who, what, where, why and how.
But reading reports from the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, I searched exhaustively before I could form any picture of what had actually been done to the Qurans in question. Not only did accounts conflict; none offered a clear notion of who had allegedly done what, let alone why or how.
Were Qurans burned, as one U.S. report had it, under the oversight of U.S. military officials? Or were they brought by soldiers for incineration, as another version maintained, as part of a haul of “extremist literature” and prisoners’ personal communications, with Afghan workers alerting others at the base to the nature of the material?
These murky accounts – with no clear subjects or actions (The New York Times, incredibly, managed not to describe the burning at all) – reflect what happens when major news outlets appear simply to take dictation from the Pentagon.
Categories: Afghanistan, Asia, Islam, Quran, Religion
Americans reporters DO NOT take DICTATION from Pentagon. Although, in this situation they have to rely on the goverment sources , because it is not safe to go to Afghanistan.
Perhapes, some people dont read history &/or have poor memory.
It was journalist Daniel Ellsburg who disclosed “The Pentagon Papers” , which ultimately ended The Vietnam War.
Two journalits Carl Burnstein & Bob Woodwards were responsible for downfall of Presiden Nixon.
I rest my case.
Well, I would say, “some do and some don’t”.
The US military learned their lesson in Vietnam and systematically avoided ‘independent reporting’. Most journalists in Afghanistan and Iraq are ’embedded’ (literally ‘in bed with the army’). Supposed to be ‘for their own safety’, but more so for the safety of the military, so that only that get reported what the military want the journalists to see.
Even with the journalists that are not ’embedded’ one wonders how they can always nicely report ‘one-sided’. I suppose they have to report what the readers want to read. Now for instance in Syria the fashion is to be ‘against the regime’. Therefore only the atrocities committed by the regime are reported. I have yet to read that the rebels murdered ‘execution style’ 300 Alavites (from the same tribe as Bashar Al-Asad) in Homs. In one article the press reported that ‘there are rumours of a massacre’ without saying who did it…