So how tough has the press been on the Iraq coverage? Not nearly as tough as Dubya seems to think (and, come to think of it, how would Bush know?... since he doesn’t read newspapers or watch TV. Oh yeah, his staff told him the media is being unfair.)
Take for example this informative and interesting article:
Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq
NEW YORK -- When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq, it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds.
E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle….
Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.
Gee, I guess the possibility of 2000 crippled soldiers – with roughly a thousand suffering brain injuries – just isn’t “news;” after all, where is the illicit sex in all that? Why should we “waste our beautiful minds…”
And people wonder where Dubya gets his callous disregard for “little folk.”
Thanks to Romanesko at Poynter Online
5:54:55 PM 
|
