Shelter From the Storm

I recently posted a photo of Ali, the Iraqui boy whose family was killed and whose arms were blown off on a relatively non political chat board. I was berated by folks on the right side of the spectrum who argued that "we all know what war is like."

I have come to doubt that statement.

This invasion more than any other in memory has been presented as a a cross between video game and a romantic novel. I don't mean romance in the sense of a love affair but as The American Heritage Dictionary says "A long fictitious tale of heroes and extraordinary or mysterious events, usually set in a distant time or place". The all "news" networks have been providing play-by-play for cowboy yarns and space operas, boys tales of distant places where the good guys always win and anybody who dies must, by definition, be a bad guy. So of course we can't stand to see an injured child, especially one injured by our hand. That just doesn't fit into the fantasy.

Embedded reporters just add to the romance. They tell the tales of those they live with. No matter how hard they might try to be objective (and we have great reason to believe that once they become embedded they don't try very hard) it is impossible to see the war from a distance. One who eats, sleeps, and plays with the warriors becomes one of them, no matter how hard they might try to convince themselves they are not. They learn quickly not to upset their now colleagues by showing them "upsetting" pictures of their fellow military personnel in physical distress or dead. The only visible dead are those we demonize. (If you are dead, you must deserve it.)

In the Vietnam war, the first truly televised war, the pictures had a profound effect on the witnesses -- the witnesses who watched the war every evening from their living rooms. From a televised execution to film of a naked child running screaming from the war we were affected on an emotional level. We were not able to pretend that the war was clean, that the victims were all deserving. In this invasion the administration has gone out of its way not to count the bodies on the other side, now approaching 2000 dead. And all was well, managed, until the unfortunate looting of the Baghdad Museum, brought to you live. Even that was tossed off by the administration.

I would not be fair if I didn't note that not all reporters have towed the current line. but I'll save the rest of that discussion for a rant burbling up on "what happens where there is no free press?".

So we had a nice clean little war. People could watch the war news while they were eating dinner without serious gastric upset. What's the harm?

Let me answer my rhetorical question with a quote from Pascale Combelles Siegel who says

"Through their coverage, the US media are undercutting their standing as an objective source of news and are undermining the basis for American democracy, with implications for years to come. While democracy relies on an informed public, US media outlets today appear more as tools of the US government's perception management campaign than objective sources of reports and analysis of the world situation".