Page 194 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

184 Chapter 8

pers, none printed a picture of a dead serviceman/woman, despite the fact that
559 American and allied forces died within that same

Downsizing Civilian Casualties

Despite emphasizing American deaths, the American media has at times printed
information on the Iraqi death tolls. For example, the Associated Press, after
reviewing statistics gathered by Iraqi hospitals, police, military and government
ofiicials, concluded in late 2005 that as many as 3,663 Iraqis were killed in the
previous six months.14 Reports like this, however, are more the exception than
the norm, as coverage of Iraqi deaths is sparse and sporadic when compared to
more common coverage of American deaths. During the invasion of Iraq, major
American newspapers printed deceptive, flagrantly inaccurate portrayals of U.S.
promises to limit civilian casualties. In an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Har-
old Meyerson argued:

In the history of the planet, ours [the US.] is the only government to show its
concern for human life through the precision of its bombs. Even the Iraqi gov-
ernment, which is hardly shy about claiming or fabricating propaganda victo-
ries, isn't contending that our air attacks on Baghdad have killed more than a
relative handful of civilians. Plainly, our bombs are displaying a strategic so-
licitude that seems beyond the capacities and inclinations of the men who run
our nation. The careful avoidance of civilian targets-or military targets in ci-
vilian neighborhoods-is of course a matter of military necessity. The Bush
administration clearly understands that making a mortal enemy of the Iraqi
people would be a disaster.I5

The Washington Post's reporting of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was also character-
ized by a reluctance to acknowledge large numbers of civilian casualties result-
ing during the invasion. A study of the invasion period from March 20 through
April 20, 2003 reveals that, by more than a two-to-one ratio, the paper's cover-
age favored American casualties over stories of Iraqi deaths.16 This imbalance of
coverage is problematic in light of estimates showing that 1,367-1,620 Iraqi
civilians died (during the first month of the conflict alone), as opposed to only
139 U.S. troops who died within the first two months of the conflict.I7 Propor-
tional reporting on these deaths would have required nearly eleven times more
coverage of Iraqi casualties, although nothing approaching that amount of cov-
erage was seen in the Washington Post or other American media.
When statistics on Iraqi deaths are given, they are often based upon the
most conservative and lowest projected civilian death figures, while higher
death count estimates receive less attention or even active ridicule. This practice
is unmistakable after reviewing the media's reaction to the Lancet reports. The
Lancet reports (released in 2004 and 2006) are an important component in the
debate, or lack thereof, over the number of Iraqi casualties. The studies ques-
tioned whether the U.S. has really targeted enemy "insurgents" with pinpoint
precision without killing large numbers of civilians. The Lancet reports' chal-