Posted by
JDComments on Friday, October 27, 2006 11:01:43 AM
This article in the NY Times headlines 42 Iraqis as being killed in a battle, and you have to read several paragraphs before you find out at least 18 were insurgents, whose deaths I would naively take to be a good thing. I found this presentation interesting, because it appears now that even when we are killing the enemy, the MSM is going to be blathering about the bloodbath in Iraq, and reinforcing the horror of what is happening over there. I imagine that even if 75 insurgents and 1 soldier were killed , the headline would have still read "76 Killed in Brutal Battle as Monthly Death Count Rises ". Doesn't the Times realize its good to kill the enemy? And shouldn't a difference be made between their deaths, and those of the Iraqi army that is defending it's country, and on whose side we are fighting? I may be wrong about this, and just a warmongering neoconservative barbarian, but I WANT to read about the killing of insurgents in a positive light, because it means we are WINNING. It is disingenuous of the Times [what a surprise!] for them to present war information in this way. Or perhaps it just reflects the fact that they do not recognize a good side and a bad side in this war, and therefore there is no difference.