[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [SRRTAC-L:7295] How Many Dead? Major networks aren't counting

[Al Kagan]

>Delivered-To: akagan at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:36:21 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>From: Stephen Labash <slabash at UBmail.ubalt.edu>
>Subject: [SRRTAC-L:7295] How Many Dead? Major networks aren't counting
>To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l at ala.org>
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Authentication: IMSP
>Reply-To: srrtac-l at ala.org
>Sender: owner-srrtac-l at ala.org
>Status:  
>
>	There was also a story in this morning's Washington Post that the
>U.S. is pressuring its "allies" not to accept surrender by the Taliban but
>to "annihilate" them.  Now we all know that if U.S. troops were trapped and
>the people surrounding them said "Kill them all" the U.S. press and
>government would certainly think that was ok.
>Steve LaBash
>
>                                  FAIR-L
>                     Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
>                Media analysis, critiques and news reports
>
>
>
>
>
>ACTION ALERT: HOW MANY DEAD?
>Major networks aren't counting
>
>December 12, 2001
>
>How many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since the start of
>U.S.-led bombing on October 7? Journalists and aid workers have limited
>access to the area, so it's an admittedly difficult question to answer. But
>many U.S. media outlets don't seem to be trying very hard.
>
>None of the three major networks' nightly newscasts are offering even rough
>tallies of the mounting civilian casualties in Afghanistan. ABC World News
>Tonight, however, has followed the story somewhat more seriously than either
>the CBS Evening News or NBC Nightly News, which both regularly frame
>discussion of civilian deaths in terms of their value in the "propaganda
>war." Questions about the legality of those U.S. targeting decisions that
>led to strikes on civilians were rarely raised on any network.
>
>It may be some time before a full accounting is possible, but relief
>agencies and a few noteworthy news stories do provide information about the
>scale of the devastation. As a "conservative" estimate, Doctors Without
>Borders has stated that civilian casualties are already in the hundreds and
>rising (NPR, 12/6/01). On the high end, a compilation of international press
>reports by a University of New Hampshire professor suggests there may be
>over 3,500 civilian deaths
>(http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm ).
>
>Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have voiced strong concern
>about the loss of civilian life, and have both independently called for a
>moratorium on the use of cluster bombs. Though it was not widely reported in
>the U.S. press-- and not at all on ABC, CBS or NBC-- Amnesty has also
>demanded "an immediate and full investigation into what may have been
>violations of international and humanitarian law such as direct attacks on
>civilian objects or indiscriminate attacks" by the U.S. military (press
>release, 10/26/01).
>
>Some in the U.S. media, however, have suggested that Afghans don't mind
>being killed by U.S. bombs. "It turns out many of those Afghan 'civilians'
>were praying for another dose of B- 52's to liberate them from the Taliban,
>casualties or not" wrote foreign affairs commentator Thomas Friedman (New
>York Times, 11/23/01).
>
>Even some of the more extensive U.S. reporting on civilian casualties--
>which came last week, after U.S. bombing near Tora Bora destroyed two
>villages and killed over 100 civilians-- seemed surprised at Afghans'
>negative response. CBS's Randall Pinkston reported that "at least 100
>people" had been killed, but claimed that until recently, "many Afghans"
>were "raising few objections to civilians accidentally killed in U.S.
>bombing attacks." He noted that the killings had provoked criticism of
>American policy, and called this "a troubling new reaction" (CBS Evening
>News, 12/1/01).
>
>One forthright story on the killings near Tora Bora, by NBC correspondent
>Mike Taibbi (12/3/01), stood in marked contrast not only to the general
>trend in reporting on other networks, but to NBC's previous coverage of
>civilian casualties as well. Taibbi investigated the destroyed villages in
>person, juxtaposing his findings-- which included a fragment of a U.S.
>missile, serial number intact-- with the Pentagon's claim that it was
>unlikely the incident had occurred.
>
>Unfortunately, this kind of independent approach was the exception rather
>than the rule on the nightly news shows. Claims that Afghan civilians had
>been killed were often reported as unsubstantial, utterly unverifiable
>salvos in the so-called "propaganda war." One report by CBS's David Martin
>(10/23/01) claimed that the Taliban's "chief weapon seems to be pictures
>they say are innocent civilians killed or injured by the bombing." Martin
>went on to say that the Pentagon admits to "a few instances of bombs hitting
>civilians," but made no mention of any estimates, from the Pentagon or
>elsewhere, of the actual number of people killed.
>
>This pattern was repeated several times on the CBS Evening News. A November
>6 CBS report stated that George Bush had "opened a new public relations
>front in the war on terrorism" because "claims of heavy civilian casualties
>have provoked howls of protest" in Muslim countries. No mention was made of
>whether such claims were factual, or, as the belittling "howl" might
>suggest, merely a PR ploy. The next day, CBS again returned to the Taliban
>"propaganda machine," with David Martin reporting that "usually it airs
>claims of civilian casualties by American bombing." Again, no mention was
>made of whether, where or how many civilians had actually been killed.
>
>A few weeks earlier (10/18/01), Martin filed a report showing images of dead
>civilians, but included no information about the people-- except that they
>were complicating the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign. Defense Secretary Donald
>Rumsfeld "says the determination to avoid scenes like these of civilians
>apparently killed by American bombs makes the terrorist hunt more
>difficult," reported Martin.
>
>NBC Nightly News also tended to present reports of the U.S. military killing
>civilians as primarily a propaganda issue. In a report (11/4/01) about
>America's battle "to protect its image as a compassionate nation," NBC
>correspondent Dan Lothian gave a thumbnail sketch of "the war on terrorism
>as reported in the Arab world." With no apparent sense of irony, Lothian
>catalogued the Arab media's propaganda: "Daily doses of news concerning
>civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Graphic pictures below front page
>headlines. Compelling stories on cable TV, as well." Daily news, graphic
>pictures and compelling stories-- a threatening arsenal indeed.
>
>"The first casualties of this war were thousands of American civilians,"
>said Lothian in his wrap-up. "Now, as the Taliban is targeted for protecting
>the terrorists of Al-Qaeda, the U.S. is also fighting a public relations
>war." It's a difficult passage to parse, but the meaning seems to be that
>first, American civilians were attacked by terrorists, and now, the United
>States' image is being attacked with equal mercilessness.
>
>NBC's most persistent advocate of the propaganda perspective, however, was
>Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, who several times portrayed reports
>of Afghan civilian casualties as an assault on the U.S. Despite the U.S.
>military's "overwhelming firepower," reported Miklaszewski (10/15/01), "the
>Pentagon is on the defensive today." Why? Because "the Taliban took foreign
>journalists on a guided tour of the village of Karam, where they claim US
>bombs killed 200 civilians." Later, the Pentagon was still "fighting the
>propaganda war" by "denying Taliban claims that American bombs have killed
>more than 1,000 innocent civilians" (10/24/01). The report did not
>investigate what a more accurate figure might be, or whether any civilians
>had been killed at all.
>
>A few days later (10/29/01), Miklaszewski again had the Pentagon "on the
>defensive" against "charges that American bombs are killing hundreds of
>civilians," noting that "Rumsfeld says the ultimate blame lies with those
>who started the war." Despite Rumsfeld's implicit acknowledgement that some
>civilians-- perhaps hundreds-- had been killed, NBC again failed to ask how
>many, where or why.
>
>In comparison to CBS and NBC's poor performances, ABC World News Tonight did
>somewhat better at reporting specific numbers and locations of instances
>when U.S. bombs hit civilians. Reporter David Wright devoted attention to
>civilian casualties as an issue in their own right, noting, for example,
>that "even when the target's the front line, the trouble is, people live
>here" (10/28/01). ABC has not, however, focused on the important questions
>raised by groups like Amnesty International about the legality of U.S.
>strikes.
>
>When media portray reports of civilian casualties as an attack on America,
>it's hardly surprising that serious reporting on the issue is scarce. It is
>crucial that news outlets independently investigate civilian casualties in
>Afghanistan-- not only how many there have been, but how and why they
>happened.
>
>ACTION: Please ask the three major networks' nightly news shows to
>investigate how many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan as a result
>of U.S. military action, and to examine the legality of those attacks.
>
>CONTACT:
>ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings
>Phone: 212-456-4040
>Fax: 212-456-2795
>mailto:netaudr at abc.com
>
>CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
>Phone: 212-975-3691
>Fax: 212-975-1893
>mailto:audsvcs at cbs.com
>
>NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw
>Phone: 212-664-4971
>Fax: 202-362-2009
>mailto:nightly at msnbc.com
>
>As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
>you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair at fair.org with your
>correspondence.
>
>                                ----------
>
>Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to
>everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
>documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
>your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us
>at: fair at fair.org .
>
>FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox
>News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 6:30 pm
>and Sundays at 11 pm (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings.
>
>FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in
>the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
>http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
>
>Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!
>For more information, go to:
>http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.
>
>FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New
>York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see:
>http://www.fair.org/internships.html
>
>You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by
>sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to
>LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
>
>You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF
>FAIR-L" in the body to: LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU .
>
>                                   FAIR
>                              (212) 633-6700
>                           http://www.fair.org/
>                           E-mail: fair at fair.org
>
>list administrators: FAIR-L-request at american.edu
>
>
>--- End Forwarded Message ---

-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu