QandO
Questions and Observations| « WMD - but slow down | Main | Emerods on both their houses » |
|
May 17, 2004 Why Abu Ghraib matters more David Adesnik gets it exactly right... There is no question that the media has made a subjective judgment that Abu Ghraib is far more important than the beheading of Nick Berg. But that is a judgment that I strongly endorse and for reasons that should be very familiar to conservatives.The difference is this: What happened to Nick Berg was mostly news because of the videotape - because of the gruesome and personal connection we could make with it. In any other respect, it was simply Standard Operating Procedure for Al Qaeda. It was "the norm". On the other hand, what happened at Abu Ghraib was an aberration. As some other blogger (I can't recall who) put it, the Abu Ghraib abuse was an exception to our principles. The Nick Berg beheading was an expression of theirs. So, yeah....Abu Ghraib is bigger news. It should be. |
Sorry, Jon... I'm afraid I can't bring myself to tilt at this particular windmill.
What this is, is Un-American leftists understanding that without the absolute worst happening in the Middle East, they stand no chance whatever of defeating the Republicans, and regaining the power they lost. To that end of regaining that power, the Democrats will stop at NOTHING. including fanning the flames of whatever Arab hatred that comes along, heedless of the longer-term consequences to America, or for that matter, to the world as a whole, to further that quest for power.
Do you really thin this a coincidence, that as Mr. Bush's approval ratings have been dropping the press seems to be inventing new ways to keep Abu Ghraib in the headlines?
Consider, Jon; The people all bent out of shape about our removing Saddam, including the UN, are also the ones who seemingly are not all that unhappy about the deaths of Americans Pearl, Berg, and all the rest. And I include the press, here. And guess what? They're all John Kerry supporters. That point alone tells us why the deaths of these brave people mean so little, and why the name Abu Ghraib will be in the headlines until election day.
What I can't figure is why you're falling in line with them, here.
I'm sorry, Jon, I have great respect for you and this blog... but I can't agree with you on this one.
Posted by: Bithead at May 17, 2004 10:33 AM
Hey, I can handle agreeable disagreement. If you always agreed with me, I'd be a fairly boring blogger, no?
To the meat: in short, yes, I do think it is largely a coincidence. Or, at least, the parallel between Bush's sliding approval ratings and the Abu Ghraib scandal does not equate conspiracy - or even causation, necessarily.
The press cares about "Stories" - and Abu Ghraib is, legitimately, a Story. It is important. Very important. Plus, there's new information coming out, and it genuinely may involve people at higher levels. We don't know, at this point.
The Nick Berg beheading is a terrible thing, but it carries no lasting story. What else is there to say that we don't already know?
Posted by: Jon Henke at May 17, 2004 10:40 AM
The Nick Berg beheading is a terrible thing, but it carries no lasting story. What else is there to say that we don't already know?
Much.
For one thing, the interesting linkage between Berg and Musaoui, in OKC. For another what he was doing in IRaq at all, if he was supposedly ordered to leave several times? There's a lot about that story that simpy doesn't add up.
As for:
in short, yes, I do think it is largely a coincidence. Or, at least, the parallel between Bush's sliding approval ratings and the Abu Ghraib scandal does not equate conspiracy - or even causation, necessarily.
Not alone, and of themselves, no. But look at the number of things the press (Who vote around 80% Democrat anyway, by their own numbers) has been tossing at Mr. Bush. In every detail for the last several months, there is a direct linkage between a downward trend on Mr. Bush's popularity, or that of the war itself, and the amount of effort our press expends on a particular meme. This one seems to be having an effect, limited as it is, and so the press makes tihs out as a major story. The pattern is clear enough on this. Anything that Makes America, and Mr. Bush look bad, gets headline status, and what makes us look GOOD, gets ignored.
Posted by: Bithead at May 17, 2004 10:53 AM
I'll agree, to a certain extent. But I 100% absolutely feel the Abu Ghraib story is already being wildly overplayed.
Is it a more important story? Ok, I'll agree. But it's not the ONLY story, and that is where the press is making it's mistake.
Posted by: shark at May 17, 2004 10:56 AM
As an addendum, I feel that the shelf life for a story basically ends once major media outlets get duped into running doctored photos w/o verification because it fits the story.
Both here and in London.
Posted by: shark at May 17, 2004 10:59 AM
Jon, as an add-on; I find it interesting you make my point for me;
Let's face it ... Abu Ghraib was a debacle. But it is not indicative nor symbolic of why we're there or what we're there to accomplish (and if I believed otherwise, I'd have to quit this country). Its a hideous anomaly. Its a cancer which needs to be excised. But it is also an event which political opponents (and enemies) are using to the maximum to discredit what the US and what it has accomplished.
(Emph is mine)
Posted by: Bithead at May 17, 2004 11:05 AM
Bithead: Jon didn't make that point ... I did.
Posted by: McQ at May 17, 2004 11:55 AM
But it is also an event which political opponents (and enemies) are using to the maximum to discredit what the US and what it has accomplished
....Sen Kennedy, Boston Globe, NY Times, we're looking in your direction!
To me, the real Abu Ghraib story is how we handle this in terms of punishments, reform in that area, etc.
But this is now into feeding frenzy territory. It's out of control. Maybe the Jacko or Kobe trials will defeat it.
This has been blown all out of proportion. It's called context, and it's sorely lacking.
Posted by: shark at May 17, 2004 12:08 PM
McQ:
Your correction gladly accepted.
Posted by: Bithead at May 17, 2004 12:22 PM
I'm with shark. Because of the photos, Abu Ghraib is a story, but there are many ways to spin it.
The story line that the media has mostly focused on is: the poor, young, undertrained, away-from-home-too-long, part-time soldiers were either ordered or duped into abusing probably innocent Iraqis already burdened by occupation and the destruction of Iraqi security. The orders, or at least direction, for the soldiers' behavior undoubtedly came from Rumsfeld and Pentagon brass who have never liked the Geneva convention and are known unilateralist empire builders who hate Arabs.
Or maybe you haven't been watching CNN.
Posted by: pilsener at May 17, 2004 01:27 PM
Sorry Jon, I cannot agree. The media can show pictures of what is basically BDSM deviancy (sp?) but the corpses of the four contractors and the execution of Nick Berg just might be too offensive. And they sure haven't been making your point that this is "normal" for the jihadis, but they appear to be mired in the 60s and are trying to portray this as normal for the military, much like their favorite candidate and his "war crimes" accusations.
I would agree that the five killings and the treatement of the corpses are offensive, but offensive to what? For the media, it is their political agenda. Plain and simple.
Posted by: David R. Block at May 17, 2004 02:50 PM
An atrocity committed against one human being by another is deplorable, inexcusable and unforgivable. Period. There is no scale here. One is no worse nor better than the other. You cannot justify or excuse either action. Why would you even attempt to do so?
Posted by: Becky at May 18, 2004 12:37 AM
>
Becky, the point is not which "atrocity" matters more, but what the media spends more time covering. Newspapers and TV make choices every day about what stories are important, and how they will cover those stories.
Abu Ghraib is the story of CHOICE right now. Even though in a world filled with atrocities and human rights abuse, Abu Ghraib is relatively benign treatment.
Posted by: pilsener at May 18, 2004 07:46 AM