Or at least, that’s what the major US media seems to believe. From FAIR:<\/p>\n
Early reports of a massive U.S. attack on civilians in western Afghanistan last week (5\/5\/09) hewed to a familiar corporate media formula, stressing official U.S. denials and framing the scores of dead civilians as a PR setback for the White House’s war effort.<\/p>\n
Scanning the headlines gave a sense of the media’s view of the tragedy: “Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War” (New York Times<\/span>, 5\/7\/09<\/a>), “Claim of Afghan Civilian Deaths Clouds U.S. Talks” (Wall Street Journal<\/span>, 5\/7\/09<\/a>), “Afghan Civilian Deaths Present U.S. With Strategic Problem” (Washington Post<\/span>, 5\/8\/09<\/a>).<\/p>\n
As is frequently the case with such incidents (Extra! Update<\/span>, 8\/07<\/a>), the primary fallout would seem to be the damage done to U.S. goals. The New York Times<\/span> reported that civilian deaths “have been a decisive factor in souring many Afghans on the war.” As CBS Evening News<\/span> anchor Katie Couric put it (5\/6\/09), “Reports of these civilian casualties could not have come at a worse time, as the Obama administration launches its new strategy to eradicate the Taliban and convince the Afghan people to support those efforts.” Other outlets used very similar language to explain why the timing was “particularly sensitive” (Washington Post<\/span>, 5\/7\/09) or “awkward” (Associated Press<\/span>, 5\/7\/09) for the Obama administration. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The US media also gladly reported anonymous and seemingly unverified claims that it was the Taliban’s fault, not the US’s. Read the whole thing.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Or at least, that’s what the major US media seems to believe. From FAIR: Early reports of a massive U.S. attack on civilians in western Afghanistan last week (5\/5\/09) hewed to a familiar corporate media formula, stressing official U.S. denials … Continue reading