After the Bomb
Summary: A dump truck pulled into Baghdad carrying a ton of explosives. The blast generated by the explosives killed 130 and injured more than 300. Other small explosions were also reported outside the city. The explosion came just hours after Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a revered Shiite cleric, had made a plea for peace in the country.
The article, though written by a U.S. paper, the L.A. TImes, evoked a very negative American image in its lead.
" A dump truck hauling a ton of explosives hidden beneath boxes of food exploded in the center of a crowded Baghdad market Saturday, killing at least 130 people and injuring more than 300 in one of the deadliest blasts since the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
This comparison of such a horrible act to an act committed by the U.S. creates almost a disgust in ourselves as Americans and a feeling remorse in knowing that without that last part of the lead we would have went on with our day happily condmening whoever bombed Baghdad.
Whether this anti-American sentiment was intentional or not, it makes it all the more easy laugh at the idea of President Bush stepping into to denounce the attack when we have done the same thing.
Tina Susman, the author of the piece, goes on to write about other recent attacks giving an idea of how even though this explosion was bad, it isn't a secluded event.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070203-115718-8786r.htm
In comparison, the article "Deadliest Blast Kills 135 in Iraq" by Ros Colvin from the Washington Times, uses a similar reference to the Iraq war, but with a more neautral tone in regards to America:
" A suicide bomber killed 135 persons yesterday in the deadliest single explosion in Iraq since the 2003 war began, driving a truck laden with a ton of explosives into a market in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad."
In contrast to the L.A. Times article, the Washington Times article focuses only on this particular event. It makes some references as to what's being done to prevent more attacks, such a Bush stating that we, the U.S., are going to deploy 21,500 reinforcements to help on the opffense in Baghdad. This addition of information into the story creates a feeling of American heroism.
This contrast between an anti-American article and a more patriotic one, is an interest comparison to see. Especially when both papers are within U.S. borders, just opposite coasts. Personally, I like the L.A. Times article more, not because of the Anti-American sentiment, but because I enjoyed the author putting this incident in context with other attacks. I also like to see reporters taking a stand and being allowed to report articles that many people, particularly the government, don't agree with. No matter what side I side with.
Comments
Hi, Keith. You have zoomed in on an interesting nuance -- media outlets that refer to "the U.S. invasion" of Iraq vs. those who refer more generally to "the war" in Iraq. You also touch on a deeper issue: Whether an American journalist is obligated to project a pro-American viewpoint.
On the first point about wording, I don't see any sign of "anti-American bias" in the L.A. Times story. When the writer refers to this recent bombing as one of the worst "since the U.S. invasion of Iraq," I can see that it could be read, as you did, as a comparison -- "the biggest act of violence since this earlier act of violence (the invasion)." But if you compare similar coverage, it becomes clear that is meant, more innocently, as simply a reference to a time period to provide context. She means, it's one of the biggest to have occurred in the period of time since the U.S. invasion. So she's comparing this to other bombings. "It's one of the biggest since this chapter of history began," she means. She might just have easily said "since the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein's regime," but that would be wordier.
She could have written, like Reuters news agency did in the other article that you cited, "since the 2003 war began." That is more vague. Anyway, an argument can be made that there is not a single war: There was a first war, the U.S. vs. the Saddam government, which quickly ended, and perhaps the insurgency was a continuation of that. But the current round of Shiite vs. Sunni killings is a civil war made possible by the first war.
You sense something anti-American in calling the U.S.' action in 2003 an "invasion." But, factually, that is what the U.S. did. When an army enters another country's territory by force, the technical, value-neutral term is invasion.
(The second article was produced by Reuters, which is British-owned and ideologically neutral, although it was published by the Washington Times, which leans heavily conservative like Fox News.)
Let me move to the deeper issue. A journalist's duty is to report the truth. This truth would be the same no matter what country you were born in. If you, as a journalist, discovered something that reflected badly on the U.S. government, your duty as a journalist would be to report it, as the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War.
You can be a loyal American -- personally. You can have all sorts of personal loyalties and biases: They're unavoidable. But when you clock in as a journalist, you have to rise above your personal biases. In the American system, we have a free and independent press. The independent part means, we are not beholden to the rulers of our country. In this society, our role is to get the truth out. You pledge allegiance to the truth.
It is not a journalist's duty to choose words that the Pentagon would approve of. They have their own flacks to do that, and a large apparatus for putting out their preferred version of events.
This is a deeply important subject, and I'm glad you raised it.
Posted by: Dan Bernard | February 5, 2007 3:35 AM