I just learned, via Mike the Mad Biologist, that the Newsweek cover for the United States this week is just a little different than the covers for the international editions. (Click the link, and look at the sidebar.) That's right, folks. Right now, with just over a month to go before a mid-term election where terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look to be major issues with the voters, Newsweek has a terrorism issue front and center everywhere but in the US. Here, an article about a photographer gets the cover slot. I'll never be able to prove it, but I bet I know why.
The editors are probably being careful, and they want to make sure that the Republicans can't accuse them of being biased toward one side. The cover article in most of the world involves the comeback that the Taliban seem to be staging in Afghanistan. The discussion of the reasons for the comeback includes phrases like, "Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint," and "not nearly enough U.S., Western or Afghan troops." Phrases like that are almost custom-designed to make conservative pundits start complaining about media bias.
The problem, of course, is that it's not the media who are biased. It's the facts. The harsh reality is that reality doesn't support them at all.
There are way, way, way too few troops to secure Afghanistan. 40,000 is nothing. The country is large, there's lots of rugged, uninhabitable terrain out there, and it's entirely possible that the closest that they've ever come to a strong central government was when a guy named Alexander put in a hostile takeover bid. There are shortages of lots of things out there, but there are lots of guns, bullets, and explosives - not to mention a very strong national tradition when it comes to fighting outsiders. 40,000 troops are never going to be enough to keep the lid on the whole contry. Hell, 40,000 troops are barely enough to keep the lid on in Kabul.
Why are there only 40,000 troops in Afghanistan? Iraq. We don't have enough troops to conduct long-term deployments in both locations and still allow the troops some time with their families. If you doubt that, look at yesterday's extention and early deployment notices.
The lack of troops in Afghanistan is a fact. The causes point at the Republican administration, and the Republicans are going to squawk when these facts are pointed out. Newsweek needs to show that they have the courage needed to report the facts.
Even if those facts are biased.
- Log in to post comments
Mostly the problem now of days when it comes to the media is that those in control of it are in comfortable socio-economic positions, and we live in a culture that places a higher priority on climbing the corporate ladder than ethical activism or (real) patriotism.
Back when most of the media outlets were independently owned and journalism was considered a blue-collar trade rather than a white-collar profession, you saw a lot more dissent in the media and a lot more journalists who were willing to risk their reputations and careers by reporting things. It certainly wasn't panacea, but in my mind such a thing is vastly preferable to the situation today, where "journalists" have such an insider status in Washington and elsewhere that they may as well be politicians themselves.
You also have to place some blame on the corporate owners of the media, who usually shun real reporting for profitable celebrity gossip and puff media (e.g. American Idol).
I have always said that the media was going to start breaking out the GOP propaganda in the few months before the election, it's been modus operandi for the last three elections (at least), why would it change now?
It's a sad state of affairs.
That's certainly a possibility, but take off your tinfoil hat and think about this: they've got an exclusive for a book that is just about to be published, most likely by a company owned by the same parent company. (I didn't look it up, but I bet that's what it is.) And since this book is being published in the US only (at least for now), there's no reason to put it on the cover of other editions.
So Newsweek is becoming People - what else is new?
Don't see consipiracies everywhere...
If the system is sufficiently dysfunctional, the ensuing destruction doesn't require a conspiracy.
Julie: My version (not unique to me) of that is "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice".