The Nobel Nomination Line Starts Here
by matt at 12:00 pm on May 29th, 2006 in Iraq War, MediaCNN, like every other news organization, is reporting that two CBS employees were killed and one injured when the military convoy in which they were embedded was hit with an IED:
CBS said cameraman Paul Douglas, 48, and sound tech James Brolan, 42, were killed in the blast. Both were British and based in London, the network said.
The U.S. military said a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi contractor also were killed in the attack on their convoy.
Six U.S. soldiers and CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier were wounded in the attack, the military said.
As of noon PDT, this was CNN’s top story, and had been for hours. What was just the latest in a never ending string of IED blasts became news because white civilians were among the victims. Think I’m irresponsibly accusing CNN of racism? Really?
Rosemary Church, CNN anchor : Ryan Chilcote joins us now from Baghdad with more.
And Ryan, we will talk in just a moment on that U.S. news crew, but, of course, many lives lost today, this violent day in Baghdad.
Ryan Chilcote, CNN correspondent : That’s right. It has been an exceptionally violent day in Iraq. At least 43 Iraqis killed around the country, at least 71 Iraqis wounded. All of that in attacks, dozens of attacks around the country since dawn.
[…]
Church: Ryan, we mentioned that American news crew. It does — it does put a human face on this conflict, doesn’t it? What information do you have on that incident?Chilcote: Sure. What we know at this point is that took place as a result of one of the more recent bombings.
Three-plus years into the Iraq war, and now it has a human face.
JimC wrote:
Didn’t we go through all this when Bob Woodruff was nearly killed in an IED attack and received loads of air time?
Posted 29 May 2006 at 2:23 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Bob Woodruff = white civilian.
Posted 29 May 2006 at 2:25 pm ¶
Martha Miller wrote:
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq, the U.S. involvement in the resultant Iraqi Civil War and continued U.S. involvement Iraqi Civil War must be stopped; but it is not going to happen without reforming the Democratic Party so there will be representation for the LEFT. Right now, nearly the whole Democratic Party is working and cooperating with the EXTREME RIGHT.
Further information of interest at Reform Democratic Party’s following link:
http://reformdemocraticparty.blogspot.com
Posted 29 May 2006 at 2:52 pm ¶
eponymagain wrote:
Unfortunately for Woodruff, Douglas, Brolan, et al, events cannot be undone. We cannot undo the attacks and restore the dead to life, restore the injured to health. And unfortunately for Church, we are also unable to return her view of the war to its prior state of human-facelessness. These must be very difficult times for her.
Posted 29 May 2006 at 3:13 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Is Paul Douglas not a black man?
Posted 29 May 2006 at 3:35 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Another Orwellian echo? (And not 1984 for a change.) We honor everyone who dies in the war on Iraq, but we honor some people more than others. And we honor some differently.
American soldiers signed up for it, when they enlisted; it is enough to remember them only on Memorial Day. (Which makes it rather ironic, of course, that Douglas and Brolan are being over-honored in their death today.)
American (by citizenship or employment) journalists are brave souls who needn’t have put themselves in harm’s way; they are to be honored more than all others. Because they are there for our sake. And because who does all the honoring in American society today anyway?
American (by citizenship or employment) civilian non-journalists may or may not be brave souls, even though they needn’t have put themselves in harm’s way. Some of them are definitely just greedy souls there to make money out of the war from no-bid contracts. So American civilian non-journalists are to be honored much less than journalists.
Iraqi soldiers don’t count; not the ones we fought against and killed, not the ones who fought by our side and were killed by insurgents. We celebrate only the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives in combat in the cause of freedom. Because.
Iraqi civilians don’t count either. Nothing is gained by remembering and mourning the non-Americans whose lives we sacrifice in the cause of their own freedom. Besides, even if they aren’t insurgent-sympathizers, they probably danced in the streets when the twin towers fell.
Posted 29 May 2006 at 3:39 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Afterthought:
Cameramen are to be honored more than sound techs. Sound techs only qualify to be remembered via a very fuzzy photo.
Posted 29 May 2006 at 3:55 pm ¶
matt wrote:
hard to tell. he’s not iraqi, that’s for damn sure.
Posted 29 May 2006 at 6:40 pm ¶
john wrote:
I think you’re completely right. Last summer, the same thing happened with the London bombings. Every news anchor with a pulse made it to London for live on the scene reporting, but meanwhile, as bombs were blowing up Turkey and Egypt, not to mention Iraq, with greater frequency and greater casualties, the media didn’t have nearly as much interest.
If it’s white, it leads.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:52 am ¶
sac wrote:
I would say that news organizations agressively cover the deaths of journalists because the victims are their direct peers, or even friends, so it hits close to home for them. I’m not saying that is the proper thing to do, but it certainly is understandable. Just like cops and firemen make big deals when one of them gets killed on the job, only their platform is not the media, so instead, you get parades and closed-off streets.
The racism charge here is bullshit. Plenty of white American soldiers are getting killed, and they aren’t getting any coverage either. Paul Douglas is indeed a black man. If he was also an on-air personality, he’d be getting way more coverage. Similarly, if it was Bernard Shaw instead of Woodruff, I don’t think the coverage would be any less. It’s all about fame, and in this case, on-air journalists are more famous than their crew and just about everyone else getting killed or injured in Iraq.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 1:00 pm ¶
matt wrote:
right. because iraqi civilians getting killed every day aren’t human.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 1:36 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Would you be more affected by a friend’s death or an Iraqi civilian’s death? Or which would bring the horrors of war closer to home for you? I just found out that a high school friend of mine is being transferred to Fallujah next month. He’s the first person I know that will be over there, and I have to say, that news has affected me personally more than all the other news coming out of Iraq. Does that make me selfish and insular? Maybe. Does it make me any less compassionate for the Iraqi civilians dying? I don’t think so. And I’m certain it doesn’t make me racist.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 1:44 pm ¶
matt wrote:
what part of this don’t you understand?
I’m not prioritizing grief or suffering, but this conflict has had hundreds of thousands of human faces. considering most of the human faces were iraqi, killed and wounded, for an anchor on cnn talking to perhaps a million people to say something like that should be cause for termination. it’s flat out racist, no matter what race douglas was.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
The argument is not about whether a newsman should grieve if a friend or
colleague is killed, but whether it’s okay for him to let it affect how he reports the news.
If a newsman finds out that a high school friend is being sent out to Fallujah, being affected personally doesn’t make him selfish or insular or anything else. But that shouldn’t change the way he reports the war.
Except that its supposed to be their job to be objective about the news. They are not supposed to use their control of “the means of production” in this industry to sentimentalize what happens to friends and colleagues.
I can buy the argument that the death of foreign civilians is rare compared to deaths of soldiers or Iraqi civilians, and so might deserve to be treated as more newsworthy. But I do feel it is dishonest for the media to make a bigger deal of these deaths than they do for those of other foreign civilians.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
In the same vein as Matt’s last comment, how many of the people who went on and on ad infinitum about the deaths of Douglas and Brolan on Monday actuallay knew these two guys?
For most, they were not friends, just professional colleagues they had never even met. Aren’t the Iraqi journalists who have been killed in this war their professional colleagues in exactly the same way?
How can anyone justify treating the deaths of Western jourtnalists and Iraqi jourtnalists differently?
I can understand CBS devoting more attention to their deaths, since they were CBS employees. But I don’t see how it makes sense for anyone else.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:12 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Sarabeth, I agree. I just don’t think it makes them racist. Also, the guy’s “puts a human face on it” comment was unfortunate and certainly can be construed as racist. However, I don’t believe that was the intent, he was speaking off the cuff and made a bad choice of words. At least, that’s how I see it. Some colleagues of his died and it put a human (read: personal) face on the war for him. Do you really believe he had not thought of the Iraqi dead, or has not been affected by their deaths because he views Iraqis as less valuable humans than whites? Because that is what you are charging him with. I admit I’m not as affected by Iraqi deaths as I am by American deaths, regardless of the color of the American. That tendency is more nationalistic than anything else, and it occurs in most everyone. Proximity is everything.
That said, I’m more affected by the death of children, regardless of nationality, than anything else.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:15 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes. And I apologize for my earlier “Isn’t Douglas black?” When I read “racist” and “white civilian” I let knee-jerk reactions take over, and thought only in terms of white versus black. It didn’t strike me I should be thinking white versus Iraqi.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:15 pm ¶
matt wrote:
THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT!!!!!!! that attitude has been so ingrained that it is the default now. using the rationale that we were “liberating” them, we’re even more responsible for iraqi civilian safety. the “some eggs are going to get broken” thing is bullshit, yet oddly pervasive.
yes.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:25 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Let’s remember they were British employees of CBS based in London and posted to Iraq. Strangers to Church (who is a she). Just anonymous journalists really.
Given that, no matter how you slice and dice Church’s words, they were obscene.
Maybe she views British journalists as more valuable human beings that Iraqi journalists. Or maybe she was saying that it puts a human face etc. for her viewers; in other words that she expects her viewers to see British journalists as more valuable human beings that Iraqi journalists.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:26 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Because their audience is American. Do you think Al Jazeera covers the deaths of American and Iraqi journalists equally? Not saying that’s an ideal situation, but it’s a fact.
They share a profession. Expand that to any profession. If you are a steelworker and you hear about another steelworker in another state, one you have never met, who dies on the job, doing the same thing you do every day, would that not affect you personally?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:39 pm ¶
matt wrote:
sac, tell me you understand the difference between someone who has a megaphone powerful enough to reach a million people and a steelworker who probably talks to 2 people in a given week?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:41 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I do. I also understand the difference between unprofessionalism and racism.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:42 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Frankly, no. No way. I might feel sorry for their family, but it wouldn’t afect me personally. How could it? I don’t know them.
And that’s not a very good analogy, the way you’ve phrased it. In our case, they may both be steelworkers, but they are not doing the same thing every day. CNN anchor Rosemary Church sitting in the US and reporting the news is performing a totally different journalism job from the two British employees of CBS who died in Iraq. Neither steelworking nor journalism is a homogenous industry, with everyone doing the same job.
A more accurate version of the analogy might be:
You’re pushing very hard to create a legitimate personal interest for Church in the deaths of these men, but it isn’t working. They were not friends. They had nothing in common beyond happening to work in the same industry. That’s a pretty flimsy personal bond.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:05 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Well, tell that to the cops and firemen who travel from all over the state when one of their’s dies on the job, regardless of whether they work behind a desk or out in the field. I’m not saying you have to feel this way, I’m merely saying it is a common feeling.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:53 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Maybe among cops and firemen. Maybe not so much among steelworkers? Or other occupations?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 5:02 pm ¶