Media Continues to Distort Army Detainee Abuse
Let's see how creative the news media is these days.
After a lawsuit by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, the US Army was required to turn over 2,500 pages of documents. CNN News read through it all and came up with this headline today:
Then comes the news story itself:
Buried down in the fourth paragraph we find this previously hidden fact:
Oh, excuse me, Mike Mount of the CNN Washington Bureau (whose byline heads the article) wants to make sure we do not underestimate the extent of this abuse by our servicemen in Iraq. So of course he says, "At least three soldiers..." Perhaps there were four? or 200? What's your guess? My guess is.....three! Why? Because that's what the documents tell us.
Apparently disappointed at the absence of a juicy story of any significance whatsoever, it became necessary to conjure one out of thin air.
First: The dramatic, eye-catching and damning headline.
Second: The subtitle, spelling out the story's source and expanding on the nature of the atrocities committed by the US Army.
Then comes the lead paragraph, leading the reader to imagine that the US Army has committed hundreds or even thousands of acts of "detainee abuse."
Finally comes the truth. There is virtually no story at all. Three incidents. No one died. No one was even injured. At least one incident took place after a tense and traumatic attack on a US Army vehicle when emotions were high. All incidents were reported by other soldiers. Those found guilty of violating military code of conduct were punished. End of story.
Since "three incidents" are not enough to justify a story at all, the writer's imagination ponders the fact that, although his material only mentions three incidents, there must be other incidents not recorded in these documents. Therefore, why not use that unsupported assumption to pump up the story a little by writing, "at least three incidents."
Hey, most people don't read beyond the headlines and the first two or three paragraphs of a story anyway. In any case, if they come away with a distorted impression of what actually was contained in those documents, well.......that's their problem, isn't it?
My guess is that journalism schools have added a new prerequisite to their curriculum lately: Obfuscation 101.
Mike Mount must have gotten an A+.
After a lawsuit by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, the US Army was required to turn over 2,500 pages of documents. CNN News read through it all and came up with this headline today:
Army: Soldiers did mock executions
Newly released documents show Iraqi detainee abuse
Newly released documents show Iraqi detainee abuse
More than 2,500 pages of documents just released by the Army reveal instances of detainee abuse, including mock executions, by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.Wow! 2,500 pages of detainee abuse! What a scandal! Really? Naw, just kidding!
The Army released the documents this week as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. The same request resulted in the release of several thousand pages of similar documents earlier this year.
Buried down in the fourth paragraph we find this previously hidden fact:
At least three soldiers were investigated and reprimanded for handling detainees outside of authorized military parameters, according to the documents.Golly gee! Three, count 'em, three soldiers reprimanded in over 2,500 pages of documents?
Oh, excuse me, Mike Mount of the CNN Washington Bureau (whose byline heads the article) wants to make sure we do not underestimate the extent of this abuse by our servicemen in Iraq. So of course he says, "At least three soldiers..." Perhaps there were four? or 200? What's your guess? My guess is.....three! Why? Because that's what the documents tell us.
Apparently disappointed at the absence of a juicy story of any significance whatsoever, it became necessary to conjure one out of thin air.
First: The dramatic, eye-catching and damning headline.
Second: The subtitle, spelling out the story's source and expanding on the nature of the atrocities committed by the US Army.
Then comes the lead paragraph, leading the reader to imagine that the US Army has committed hundreds or even thousands of acts of "detainee abuse."
Finally comes the truth. There is virtually no story at all. Three incidents. No one died. No one was even injured. At least one incident took place after a tense and traumatic attack on a US Army vehicle when emotions were high. All incidents were reported by other soldiers. Those found guilty of violating military code of conduct were punished. End of story.
Since "three incidents" are not enough to justify a story at all, the writer's imagination ponders the fact that, although his material only mentions three incidents, there must be other incidents not recorded in these documents. Therefore, why not use that unsupported assumption to pump up the story a little by writing, "at least three incidents."
Hey, most people don't read beyond the headlines and the first two or three paragraphs of a story anyway. In any case, if they come away with a distorted impression of what actually was contained in those documents, well.......that's their problem, isn't it?
My guess is that journalism schools have added a new prerequisite to their curriculum lately: Obfuscation 101.
Mike Mount must have gotten an A+.
posted by Bird of Paradise at 11:11 PM
<< Home