Thats funny, because I've seen our issues with prisoner treatment all over the fucking news. Every damn day.

Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker broke Abu Ghraib. And, yes, the photos and the initial story were picked up by much of our mainstream media. But they don't connect the dots in terms of ultimate accountability. Alberto Gonzales, who green-lit the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo torture procedures, is about to be appointed our top law enforcement official. Donald Rumsfeld remains at his post. Bush, whom memos have linked to the green-lighting of torture, was reelected; throughout the entire campaign, the media never connnected the dots from Charles Graner to Bush. The issue makes our front pages, but the majority of the reporting stops at the "few bad apples" answer as to why this happened.

Richard Nixon would have served out his second term if the Washington Post had not kept two metro reporters on a burglary story that the rest of the journalistic community thought was worthless.

Meanwhile, we have Rush and Hannity, who, like it or not, are media titans in this country, talking about how torture is nothing more than a frat boy prank and/or blowing off steam.

The BBC is not perfect. But my point is that they are state-owned, yet they continue to report stories that hurt the image of the Blair government.

Fair, except this BBC article doesnt seem to get into any "ultimate accountability," nor does it point to Blair as somehow in charge.

And, saying "But at least their mainstream media, which is funded by tax dollars, covers the story." implies that our media did not cover the story of our prisoner abuse.

Mr. Cesca just took Bill down a peg for saying "I've been in combat" because it implied he served in the armed forces. Under a headline saying he lied, no less.

You're correct, the article doesn't make a link. It's a bit early days for that. And you're right for taking me down a peg for being too fast and loose with my words. My sentiment was that the BBC is generally FAR more honest about covering the ugly side of the British government than our mainstream media is about covering anything but the official Scott McClellan-spewn version of things here. To wit, Cesca's piece above that contrasts images of Hillary Duff (our media) with a blood-spattered Iraqi child who was fired upon by US troops. Here's the link: http://www.realitybasednation.com/blog-archives/2005/01/just_what_the_h.html

How often, honestly, have you seen photos of dead or wounded Iraqi children in our media? How many times have you seen photos of US soldiers with their eyes, legs, or arms gone? How many reams of paper and minutes of airtime have been devoted to the break-up of Brad and Jen or the Pacers/Pistons brawl?

Our media has covered Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and Camp Jenny. But not NEARLY with the degree in which they deserve to be covered.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: