Saul Friedman: A Lesson from Al Jazeera?
Posted at 10:24 pm, February 7th, 2007
I came across this lead from a recent online issue of the English version of Al Jazeera, the Arab-based news service. And I wondered whether there was a lesson there for the U.S. press, which pussyfoots around such juxtaposition, for fear that it’s unfair or too pointed. The lead went as follows: “George Bush, the US president, is to ask congress for $245 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–while proposing curbs in spending on the US health care system.”
In another issue, Al Jazeera handled the same story, this one from from AP, with a precede: “Al Jazeera Editorial Note: Researchers and students of US foreign policy should notice this news and reference it as support for their hypothesis about the consequences of the Bush administration wars to average Americans. In just six years, Bush proposed and the US rubber-stamp Congress approved to borrow more than $3 trillion to spend on his wars….This has resulted in neglecting all other aspects of life for the average American citisen. In particular, two vital programs which care for elderly Americans, Medicare and Social Security have become the most vulnerable…”
The complete AP story was picked up, without further comment. Aside from the possibility that $3 trillion may be an exaggeration (but not by much), could we call this mere propaganda? Or legitimate journalism?
February 7th, 2007 at 11:47 pm |
[...] Posted in Daily life, Government, Iraq War, Bush Administration at 8:45 pm by LeisureGuy From the Watchdog Blog: I came across this lead from a recent online issue of the English version of Al Jazeera, the Arab-based news service. And I wondered whether there was a lesson there for the U.S. press, which pussyfoots around such juxtaposition, for fear that it’s unfair or too pointed. The lead went as follows: “George Bush, the US president, is to ask congress for $245 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–while proposing curbs in spending on the US health care system.” [...]
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm |
It is evident that many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of overcrossing their boundaries.
According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by her estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.
The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.
And what a lot of people are asking, is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.
Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”