www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/07/Editor250703.html
Real History weekend at Cincinnati, August 29-September 3, 2003. It is too soon to tell whether this article, and the wide discussion it seems to have provoked, has had an effect on coverage. Two days ago we presented a selection from the first batch of e-mail response to the article. Here is another provocative sample: Letter My husband is a war veteran and it makes the two of us crazy that the media is doing this. Hope you don't mind but everytime I hear or see a reporter do this I am quoting you and your article with a link to it. The attempt to sanitize the deaths of these soldiers is shameful. Joan and Pete Ingolia Letter Besides more accurate reporting on U. There is a tendency to assume, well, OK, they were "just" wounded, just a flesh wound, that sort of thing, they'll recover nicely with treatment and down-home, self-deprecating humor from Hawkeye and Trapper. Instead, "wounded" might mean the loss of limbs, having one's legs blown off by a mine. Sadly, I doubt the majority of the public appreciates this possibility, given a lifetime of TV and movies where the hero takes a bullet, rips off part of his sleeve with his teeth, bandages himself up, and soldiers on heroically. Perhaps it might be more meaningful to replace "wounded" with "maimed" or "disfigured" or whatever is the appropriate word under the circumstances. Day Letter I resent the spin you are trying to place on the number of Americans killed in Iraq. You are trying to make out that the "Mainstream Media" is in cahoots with the government in an attempt to hide the death tolls. I know you are trying to do a job but please lay off the yellow journalism. I agree with you that all of these deaths are tragic, but the military is a DANGEROUS occupation, even in peace time. A day doesn't go by where you don't read about some poor person who gets killed through accident, stupidity, or otherwise. So stop making it out that the truth is being hidden from the American people. Scott Wilson Letter Some claim that the "non-combat" death rate is little different than what you find in the usual "peacetime" Army. Fifty-three percent of all deaths were "attributable to accidents," while twenty percent were suicides, and eighteen percent disease deaths. So, given the Iraq deployment of approximately 150,000 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and taking the first two months since Mr. But the number of stated accidental deaths among American military personnel in Iraq approximates 60 for that period. An army at war is much more accident-prone than one at peace these days, but is it more than eight times more so? Shouldn't the cause of these deaths be examined and reported more fully, and categorized by the press according to a more subtle, independent standard, and not one that parrots the monochrome one of the Pentagon? Reports that echo Pentagon pronouncements shaded to encourage Americans to believe that Iraq is a less dangerous place for its troops than it really is serve an administration that seeks to minimize the cost of this invasion. As a second matter, today's combat evacuation and care system is the very best, and saves the lives of soldiers who would have surely died from their wounds if they had sustained them in World War II or even Vietnam. That is an improvement that should be applauded, but it conceals the level of violence in modern American warfare generally, and in Iraq, specifically, when comparing it with past American conflicts. Failing to cite the number of wounded or accidentally injured along with the accidentally and deliberately killed makes Iraq seem safer than it is for American troops. Again, I think this a disservice to the truth and the press should expose it. Letter Don't you find it difficult to believe that with occasional exception, only -- and exactly -- one soldier is reported killed every day? With 150,000 spread over a hostile field the size of California, are the odds not against such arithmetic? If more than one soldier is killed at remote and separate parts of Iraq, and they are from remote and separate parts of America, why report more than one death on that day? Why not play into the evident American comfort with one loss per day? As an aside, one might want to point out that the official cause of death listed as a "non-hostile" gunshot wound is either: A) An accidental discharge, which is not something that generally happens when soldiers are in garrison, and thus should be counted as a combat casualty -- just like "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" deaths; Takemoto Letter Although I was sickened when I read your story, I was not surprised. I have long suspected that these so-called "accidents" were occurring under sinister circumstances. But in this war, they are occurring in far greater proportion than normal, and that's because they aren't really accidents. Just what drives these young people with their entire lives ahead of them to reach such a low point? I have observed that during the entire course of this misadventure, the so-called "free press" has largely behaved in the manner of a government-owned propaganda agency. I urge you to continue shining a light into this dark corner of the war effort. Lusk Lakewood, Ohio Letter I have written all three networks and NPR about the " 30 dead since May 1st" phenomenon in the media. It is disgusting that they do not number all dead and wounded from day 1. There are over a thousand wounded but we don't hear about it. Jane Bardis Jenks Letter Another fascinating aspect of the reporting of casualties in Iraq, or lack of reporting, is the dearth of reporting on the deaths of Iraqi citizens (soldier or civilian) since the "end" of the war -- except the celebration at the killing of Saddam's sons. But not a whisper of this in the mainstream news, and not much in the alternative press either. Thanks for your enlightening article and the chance to comment.
|
http://csua.com/feed/