More War Propaganda from the NYT
Iraqis are little more than dark shapes
glimpsed through the slots of a speeding Humvee
Petty Officer Third Class Dustin E. Kirby, an American medic,
with the sniper’s bullet that wounded a member of his platoon in Iraq
It was pure war-nography
The front page of the New York Times today
splashed a four-column-wide close-up
of a blood-covered bullet in the blood-soaked hands of
an army medic who'd retrieved it
from the brain of Lance Cpl. Colin Smith
Petty Officer Third Class Dustin E. Kirby clutched the injured marine’s empty helmet. His hands were coated in blood. Sweat ran down his face, which he was trying to keep straight but kept twisting into a snarl.He held up the helmet and flipped it, exposing the inside. It was lined with blood and splinters of bone.
“The round hit him,” he said, pausing to point at a tiny hole that aligned roughly with a man’s temple. “Right here.”
It was pure war-nography. The front page of the New York Times today splashed a four-column-wide close-up of a blood-covered bullet in the blood-soaked hands of an army medic who'd retrieved it from the brain of Lance Cpl. Colin Smith.
There was a 40 column-inch profile of the medic. There were photos of the platoon, guns over shoulders, praying for the fallen buddy. The Times is careful not to ruin the heroic mood, so there is no photograph of pieces of corporal Smith's shattered head. Instead, there's an old, smiling photo of the wounded soldier.
The reporter, undoubtedly wearing the Kevlar armor of the troop in which he's "embedded," quotes at length the thoughts of the military medic: "I would like to say that I am a good man. But seeing this now, what happened to Smith, I want to hurt people. You know what I mean?"
The reporter does not bother -- or dare -- to record a single word from any Iraqi in the town of Karma where Smith's platoon was, "performing a hard hit on a house."
I DON'T KNOW WHAT A "HARD HIT" IS. BUT I DON'T THINK I'D WANT ONE "PERFORMED" ON MY HOME. MAYBE IRAQIS FEEL THE WAY I DO.
We won't know. The only Iraqi noted by the reporter was, "a woman [who] walked calmly between the sniper and the marines."
The Times reporter informs us that Lance Cpl. Smith, "said a prayer today," before he charged into the village. We're told that Smith had, "the cutest little blond girlfriend" and "his dad was his hero." Did the calm woman also say her prayers today? Is her dad her hero, too? We don't know. No one asks.
The reporter and his photographer did visit a home in the neighborhood -- but only after the "hit" force kicked in the door.
I suppose that's an improvement over the typical level of reporting we get. In dispatches home by the few US journalists who brave beyond the Green Zone, Iraqis are little more than dark shapes glimpsed through the slots of a speeding Humvee.
LAST MONTH THERE WAS A BIG HOO-HA OVER THE STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF A JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDY ESTIMATING THAT 655,000 IRAQIS HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THIS WAR.
I doubt the Iraqi who fired that bullet into Lance Cpl. Smith read the Hopkins study. Iraqis don't need a professor of statistics to tell them what happens in a "hard hit" on a house. Of civilians killed by the US forces the Hopkins team found 46% are younger than fifteen years old.
I grieve for Lance Cpl. Smith and I can't know for certain what moved the sniper to pick up a gun and shoot him. However, I've no doubt that, like the Marines who said prayers before they invaded the homes of the terrified residents of Karma, the sniper also said a prayer before he loaded the 7.62mm shell into his carbine.
And if we asked, I'm sure the sniper would tell us, "I am a good man, but seeing what happened, I want to hurt people."
Maybe you need to practice how to read. First it was a Navy Corpsman that
retrieved the armor piercing round from LCPL Smith's helmet after it passed
through his head, secondly the article was run by a very pro democrat paper
called the New York Times, so if obviously was not propaganda for the war.
Ignoramous, educate thyself!
NYT is labeled as liberal by the right, mostly because they shine light
where the right would prefer it not shown. That doesn't mean they get every
story correct. The story was in fact a realistic snapshot, but its
placement on the front page and blatant appeal to emotion turned it into a
de-facto shill for the warmongers. Not every story must delve into how we
got there,(and NYT must accept some of the blame for this), but you can
create propaganda by omission. Any news organization must walk a fine line
to avoid losing readers, so there is always an element of telling people
what they want to hear. Maybe that's why there are fewer stories told from
the Iraqi viewpoint. This is a tendency all responsible reporters, editors
and readers should fight.