Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai’s visit to the United States was widely covered in the media, including interviews with ABC‘s Diane Sawyer (10/11/13), CNN’s Christiane Amanpour (10/14/13) and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (10/8/13). She was selected as ABC‘s “Person of the Week” on October 11, and was considered a serious contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And for good reason; just one year ago, Malala was attacked by the Taliban for her outspoken advocacy on behalf of educational equality, surviving a an attack where she was shot in the head.
But one part of her message didn’t seem to penetrate the corporate media.
During her October 11 visit to the White House, Yousafzai told Barack Obama that his administration’s drone strikes were fueling terrorism. As McClatchy‘s Lesley Clark (10/11/13) reported:
In a statement released after the meeting, Malala said she was honored to meet with Obama, but that she told him she’s worried about the effect of US drone strikes. (The White House statement didn’t mention that part.)
“I thanked President Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,” she said in the statement. “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education, it will make a big impact.”
This exchange, for some reason, didn’t register in a corporate media that followed Malala’s visit, and her story, very closely.
This is in keeping with other media patterns we’ve seen. Earlier this year, Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer and activist, came to Washington to deliver moving testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the effect of drone strikes on his country: “What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America.” His words received scant coverage in the US media (FAIR Blog, 4/24/13).
If Americans wish to understand how US wars are experienced by those on the other side of the military attacks, it is important to hear these voices. But will US media allow these voices to be heard?
Widely picked up internationally (we non-US hacks like to keep up our ‘adversary propaganda.’) Not entirely ignored in the US either (though mostly). WaPo, which generally has a poor record reporting drone civilian casualties, did give the story reasonable coverage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/malala-yousafzai-meets-with-the-obamas-in-the-oval-office/
[satire] But you don’t understand, we have good drones, they only kill bad people; the other guys have the bad drones that kill only the good people.[satire]
How can we expect the current crop of media trolls to understand the effects of the stupidity of our actions, when their paychecks are highly dependent upon them not seeing it?
It is psychologically true from educated (peer-reviewed) and common sense standpoints that as soon as you kill one or more innocent civilians you are bound to create someone who is just as viciously dedicated to committing another terror attack on you. It is amazing to me this stuff continues.
“This exchange, for some reason, didn’t register in a corporate media that followed Malala’s visit”
Yes, for “some reason”. Why not just lay it out there? These corporations have an interest in expanding their markets into as many countries as possible, so they support these killings and will fervently try to conceal their illegality, terror, and harm from the public.
The character of Malala Yousafzai, a western ‘mockingbird’ from Swat (Pakistan), was creared by the imperialist powers to demonize the Muslims for opposing the so-called “War on Terror” which is being waged against the Muslim countries seen as threat to to Israel.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/10/07/tales-of-two-muslim-malalas/
You didn’t mention the NY Times, so I don’t know whether they covered the drone part of the story. Please cover the big news organizations. To be fair, I found it unethical for Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange – online – urging Snowden to give out more information on the NSA. Unless that’s common practice I’m not aware of. It would be interesting to know why Greenwald has left the Guardian to start his own site.
It’s about time Congress and the President acknowledge that you don’t make friends and allies by “droning” people to smithereens, and then tell Americans they MUST be afraid of EVERY “muslim looking” individual and the American government will protect us by taking away our constitutional civil and human rights.
Parading this child around as the “good” Muslim vs the “bad” ones, and using her for such cheap propaganda is simply child abuse.
@ Bla Bla Bla
You couldn’t possibly imagine (or pretend) that Malala is just a child dupe if you had heard her speak or read her blog. She is a remarkable young woman who deserves the attention she is getting. That she spoke out against the President’s drone strikes makes it clear that she is not being used in the way you imply. You are either being insincere or you are completely ignorant when you speak about Malala.
This is such common sense—–and I too wonder why there isn’t more discussion about this in the media.
Is it too late to call on Henry Kissinger to arrange another secret “peace with honor” plan to rescue victory from the jaws of defeat?
Why in the hell do you keep saying it is the CORPORATE MEDIA that supports Obama- in every case?It is HIS MEDIA that supports him.Supported him after Benghazi.Supported him during fast and furious.Supported him during the buy up of billions of rounds of Ammo without explanation.Supports him as the deficit grows faster and faster.Supports him as the president shamlessly launches cheap talking point attack against groups like the tea party and anyone who is willing to stand up and say “stop this crazy train i want to get off”.Supports him As the president spends ,prints,and borrows us into oblivion.And supports him as healthcare premiums go skyward and cost balloons to 4x the cost.The only question is WHY they support him.Stop asking WHO.It is a huge part of the press.Probably minus only FOX and some affiliates….WHY are they supporting ANYTHING this president has ever done is the only question.
@April –
http://www.popularresistance.org/more-details-on-the-new-greenwald-omidyar-media-venture/
This young girl has greater wisdom than most of our politicians. Her message is spot on. She has lived experience and that makes a huge difference in understanding. What if drones were striking our homeland in the name of freedom? Malala has taught us the most effective way to combat the Taliban and terrorism by her life example, and that is through education and diplomacy.
I think I need to read you more often.
hello
That’s a nice post.Thank you for sharing.
It takes nothing away from her principled stand against the Taliban but Malia is not an authority on “U.S. Drones as a fuel for terrorism.” Malia is as credible in that role as Roy Rogers was attesting to the goodness of Post Sugar Crisp cereal.