THE FAILURE OF THE MEDIA IN IRAQ

I'm not even sure you can say that it's specifically a question of balance in every case, so much as a complete failure to provide any meaningful context whatsoever.

Comments

[I'm Cryin']

Karl Zinsmeister isn't serious:

"By far the gravest threats to the Iraqis in that facility are the mortars and rockets that guerillas regularly lob into the compound — knowing full well that the main victims of their indiscriminate assaults will be fellow Iraqis."

Now, why did they do that? Zinsmeister provides no meaningful context, only an appeal for "any sensible" person to feel outraged or, rather, feel good about unsettling stories. The mortar attacks on the prison were indeed inexplicable at first glance, and I suspect Zinsmeister would prefer to just leave it at that and allow our prejudices to confirm that these are evil, sub-human maniacs (not righteous and good like us). But it doesn't take much to figure out that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were well-known to Iraqis. And in that twisted Muslim culture-thing, these humuliations were worse than death. These mortar attacks were a rational response to, in their view, American evil. The mortar attacks were to stop the abuses. And if that meant killing the prisoners, it was merciful and honorable and possibly even requested. Crazy effin' hajji!

I don't get the impression that that's the multi-culti road Zinsmeister really wants to go down. I don't think he's serious about 'meaningful context'. Then again, he is writing in the National Review, so I sort of knew that already.

[David Weisman]

Even more, what is done by our troops undermines our attempt to rebuild Iraq. The mortars do not undermine our message, so I agree with the reporters who find them less important to us.