The last few days have been eerily quiet here in the Green Zone. An injection of American troops coupled with Operation Swarmer to our north seem to have changed the routines quite drastically.— "will to exist"
The Times coverage of yesterday's anti-war protests is of note for two reasons. First, the relatively small size is at least mentioned, even if it isn't emphasized. (That would require specific mentions of the size of pre-war rallies.) Second, for once, the protesters aren't completely protected from themselves: there's a bit of reporting here that actually describes what's going on at and in the protests, so that the message (or lack thereof) is presented to the reader, if not with complete accuracy, certainly with more detail than was ever the case before the war, when reporters would find a few protesters who represented "average" Americans (businessmen, teachers, young mothers with strollers in tow) and simply interview them.Cori Dauber
But [the war] was not bad in the ways they see covered in the media -- the majority [of 100 Iraq war veterans interviewed] also agreed on this. What they experienced was more complex than the war they saw on television and in print. It was dangerous and confused, yes, but most of the vets also recalled enemies routed, buildings built and children befriended, against long odds in a poor and demoralized country. "We feel like we're doing something, and then we look at the news and you feel like you're getting bashed." "It seems to me the media had a predetermined script." The vibe of the coverage is just "so, so, so negative."The Washington Post, noted from Cori Dauber
The last couple of times I've seen interesting trends, I haven't mentioned them. This time I'm going to risk it: I predict that not only is the war being won in Iraq, but (for a number of reasons) it's going to start being covered as a winnable war in the legacy press.
Remember, you heard it here first.
As long as I'm right, of course.
[posted with ecto]