The Intercept (7/19/16) illustrated its article on a deadly airstrike in Syria with a photo of a victim receiving medical attention. (Photo: Delil Souleiman/AFP/Getty Images)
A coalition airstrike reported on Tuesday that killed at least 85 Syrian civilians—one more than died in the Nice attack in France last week—wasn’t featured at all on the front pages of two of the top US national newspapers, the New York Times and LA Times, and only merited brief blurbs on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, with the actual stories buried on pages A-16 and A-15, respectively.
According to the London Telegraph (7/19/16), the airstrike killed “more than 85 civilians” after the “coalition mistook them for Islamic State fighters.” Eight families were represented among the dead, with victims “as young as three.” The Intercept (7/19/16) reported the death toll could end up being well over 100.
The Pentagon has not denied the reports, saying an investigation is underway, according to Stars and Stripes (7/19/16), a media outlet that operates inside the Department of Defense.
As many on Twitter pointed out, the number of dead was roughly equal to that of the recent Nice attack, yet the airstrike did not garner nearly as much media coverage, nor did news outlets convey an outpouring of grief:
US “accidentally” obliterated 85 civilians. Same number as killed in Nice but you won’t see wall-to-wall coverage https://t.co/eS8wEa14pQ
— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) July 20, 2016
By contrast, the Nice attack garnered multiple front-page stories in the New York Times and LA Times, as well as significantly more than 20-word blurbs in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.
For those who see a “false equivalency,” there are two mitigating reasons for this glaring discrepancy: 1) The airstrike deaths were an “accident” and 2) Syria’s a war zone, where civilian deaths are to be expected. Neither of these retorts are satisfactory, and certainly not enough to justify a virtual front-page blackout.
On the issue of accidental deaths having less import than purposeful ones, this doesn’t explain why unintentional natural disaster deaths routinely receive splashing front-page coverage. Intent rarely affects coverage of these events; only death counts do. And this is granting the deaths were actually accidental, which we don’t know for sure at this time, or whether the US military was using tactics, like so-called “signature strikes,” that are known to greatly increase the chances of killing noncombatants.
As for the “war zone” factor, according to Airwars, a Western group that monitors civilian deaths at the hands of the US-led coalition, the total number of civilians deaths since the beginning of airstrikes in September 2014 has been 190. To increase this number by almost 50 percent in a matter of days would indeed be a radical departure from the normal course of events—rendering it more than newsworthy.
Indeed, all of the publications in question ran a story on the “dozens of deaths” at the hands of US-led airstrikes, so we know they deemed it notable. Just not notable enough, for whatever reason, to put in a prominent position for US audiences.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
There was a reason that Obama chose to look forward, not back, when he became President and refused to order an investigation, much less prosecution, of the war crimes committed during the Bush administration: He had his own to make, deny and forget. I have no doubt that the next President, whoever that might be, will choose to look forward, too. That’s what sociopaths do. USA, USA, USA
amen
Death counts only count if the deaths count
Good piece, but you might want to mention that the airstrike happened in Syria before the sixth paragraph. (Not counting the caption.)
US, French raids kill 140 civilians in Syria
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the biggest terrorist of all?
If this is ‘in payment’ for Nice, I guess the French are ‘ahead’. I suppose they’ll say that it’s only ‘terrorism’ if you use a truck. If you use certified and approved war gear, it’s war, and war’s OK. Next hit in France ought to be really something.
Palestinians hold funeral for child shot by Israeli troops
US-backed militants’ beheading of Syrian kid stirs outrage
I looks as though Obama’s and Brennan’s al-CIAduh have out-terrorized Bibi’s assassins, for once, as well.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall …
An arab life, be it a child, an old man, is not as worthy as an european or north-american one. Try, for once, to stop meddling, invading, bombing, torturing people in the Middle East to see the obvious result…
In the end, Johnson’s argument relies on the premise that the heavy media coverage of deaths from natural disasters proves that death counts alone dictate the level of media coverage, and therefore the coverage of the Nice terrorist attack got disproportionate attention relative to the coverage of the US-led airstrikes.
This is wrong for any number of reasons. To begin with, numerous studies have confirmed that media coverage of natural disasters is disproportionately superficial. For example, in the 2013 study “Disaster News: Framing and Frame Changing in Coverage of Major U.S. Natural Disasters, 2000-2010,” published in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, the data showed that “on average, mass media covered natural disasters for shorter periods of time than other issues.”
In any event, is FAIR really prepared to conclude that the deliberate murder of civilians by terrorists is no more evil (and so no more newsworthy) than the “accidental” killing of civilians during wartime?
How about terrorism relative to deaths from heart attacks? For example, about 600,000 Americans died from heart attacks in 2001. Islamic terrorists killed about 3,000 Americans on September 11. Should the heart attack mortalities have received 200 times as much coverage as September 11? Maybe in some alternative universe…
Of course the bottom line is that FAIR will endlessly contort itself into knots in order to downplay any Islamic terrorist attack.
Oh, and it should be: “Neither of these retorts IS satisfactory…”
In the end, the use of a straw man to refute a position not taken, is the sign of a sly, but dishonest position. Your use of natural disasters as the sine qua non of Mr. Johnson’s article is pathetic. Nor does FAIR argue that victims of terror attacks are of less importance than those of US/NATO attacks.
FAIR is asking for EQUAL treatment of the deaths by the media. What part of that simple idea eludes you?
Have I missed something or…Oh, wait…you end your comments by stating:
“Of course the bottom line is that FAIR will endlessly contort itself into knots in order to downplay any Islamic terrorist attack.” THAT explains everything.
I feel certain that one of the two major parties will have a candidate that you’ll embrace happily.
Steve, the simple idea that seems to elude you is that the deliberate killing of civilians is a more evil, shocking and newsworthy event than the accidental killing of civilians. Johnson tries to get around this simple idea via various unsuccessful strategies:
1. He argues half-heartedly that the deaths of civilians by airstrikes might not be accidental. Of course it would be pointless and even self-defeating for the U.S. to deliberately kill civilians – the most that Johnson can come up with is that the U.S. might not have done a good enough job of avoiding civilian casualties. But that’s quite different from accusing the U. S. of committing terrorism.
2. He argues that death counts alone dictate coverage. And to support this proposition, he does indeed invoke coverage of natural disasters. But this premise is false, as I pointed out. Of course, even if it were true, it would reflect an error by the media – deliberate murder should get more attention than the accidental variety.
3. He argues that civilian deaths as a result of coalition airstrikes have actually been pretty rare in the past. But this merely highlights the fact that the coalition has evidently been careful to avoid civilian casualties, clearly distinguishing its actions from terrorists like the one who struck in Nice.
Now do you get it? If not, I won’t try any further to penetrate your thick skull.
William, I take it from your failure to repeat the “argument” raised in the first two paragraphs of your original comment that you concede the emptiness of your “natural disaster” argument.
1. “Of course it would be pointless and even self-defeating for the U.S. to deliberately kill civilians…” No, William, it would not be pointless–the aim of such action is to terrorize the people beneath the drones and airstrikes. Have you ever been in the service? Do you know how the military works? You seem to think that such motives are beyond the moral boundaries of the military and the Executive. They aren’t.
2. He does not argue that “death counts alone dictate coverage.” What he has written appears above. Please cite where he makes such an argument. He is specifically asking why major stories are ignored…and this is what you either cannot or will not understand.
3. He notes that deaths from airstrikes in Syria “since the beginning of airstrikes in September 2014 has been 190. To increase this number by almost 50 percent in a matter of days would indeed be a radical departure from the normal course of events—rendering it more than newsworthy.”
He distinguishes the number of innocent people murdered by our airstrikes prior to the 85 killed in the current strike, in order to demonstrate the “newsworthiness” of such a one day increase–without being noticed by much of the main stream media. He certainly doesn’t suggest that “civilian deaths…have been pretty rare in the past.” It takes a person like yourself to look upon the death of 190 innocent people in such a cold and uncaring manner.
Once again, your words: “Of course the bottom line is that FAIR will endlessly contort itself into knots in order to downplay any Islamic terrorist attack.” You began your response to this article by assuming that FAIR is somehow sympathetic to “any Islamic terrorist attack.”
I don’t know whether you are simply naive about the moral standards of the military/national security agencies and the people in the Executive Department who give the orders or just don’t care about the reality of the slaughter of innocents behind this story, but your angry attempts to label FAIR as terrorist sympathizers and engage in name-calling do not reflect much thought or concern about honest discussion.
And, No, I do not think that you get it.
And so it goes…
“Intent rarely affects coverage of these events; only death counts do.”
wanton disregard for the disastrous consequences of your foreign policy might not be as blameworthy as outright murder, but it’s certainly as newsworthy
The source of this informaton is from The Syrian Observatiry for Human Rights based in the UK which isn’t a very reputable source, funny this article failed to mention that.
Disproportionate news coverage of deaths happens for many reasons, some legitimate and some driven by political agendas. For instance, police kill more whites than blacks, but the shootings of blacks is given MUCH more air time. (In fact, I doubt any of us can think of a single name of a white person killed by a cop. The coverage is not merely disproportionate for whites, it’s nonexistent.) Obviously, the coverage isn’t determined by sheer numbers, but the political agenda of news agencies to portray black people as victims of a racist police force. White people getting shot doesn’t fit that narrative, so it’s ignored.
Is the coverage of collateral damage in the war against ISIS a similar case, driven by political agendas? Are we ignoring it make our enemies worse than we are? Perhaps there’s an element of that. It’s human nature to downplay one’s own mistakes and emphasize the wrongdoings of one’s enemies. But as others have pointed out, it’s not only a case of bias. There are legitimate differences between collateral damage in a war to stop ISIS–a group which is indisputably evil and does not require our manipulation of the media to make them look worse than they are–and intentional killing of innocent people far from a battlefield by this evil force. Given those legitimate differences, the implicit moral equivalence being made here is disingenuous and reprehensible. Whether the point is that the U.S. is just as bad as its enemies, or its enemies are at least as good as us, either way it’s a false and politically motivated. Merely asking for equal coverage of the deaths is itself a politically driven demand, one that implicitly attacks the West while providing moral cover for its enemies.
It is a necessary evil that there will be collateral damage in ANY war. To refrain from incurring those casualties is to abstain from war … in other words, surrendering the world to the *unnecessary* evil of radical Islamic terrorism.
Abstaining from war is exactly what we should do. This would not “surrender the world.” Instead, it would isolate the terrorists. If we treated the (non-Israeli) inhabitants of the Middle East as human beings, and built them schools, roads, and hospitals rather than bombing them incessantly, the terrorists would eventually run out of recruits. The mentality of the US government/military seems to be that if we just fight for a little while longer we’ll clean up the mess once and for all. It’s been 13 years now. It’s time to stop digging this particular hole.
And you know why? Because it is a warzone and althought it is a teremendous tragedy, the intent of the atackers here WAS NOT to kill children, in France however…
Whoever unleash such a dreadful collection of destruction war machines on defenseless countries, cities and villages ARE PERFECTLY AWARE OF THE INEVITABLE CIVILIAN DAMAGES and are WILLIINGLY accepting these “colateral damages”, another newsspeak phrase to describe a cruel massacre. There is simply no justification for these barbarian acts that level its perpetrators to the lowest in mankind.
Now I’m waiting for FAIR to explain why the Munich attack is getting too much attention. After all, there are only 6 fatalities so far.
Let’s take bets here. Will it be:
1. What about Breivik?
2. What about Beirut?
3. What about coalition airstrikes?
4. What about natural disasters?
**Or come up with your own creative way to downplay Islamic terrorism!!
You might pay heed to German authorities, who do not even term this a terrorist attack, let alone an Islamic one. it was a criminal shooting spree by a mentally deranged youngster, inspired by Breivik and possibly the flood of suggestions that killing innocent people is OK, as so many who do it, are never held to account. Including police officers.
The Germans have understood, that rushing to conclusions only fuels more hatred and revenge. Something the French unfortunately have not yet understood.
Thank you Adam for pointing out these discrepancies. If it is any comfort, the same applies in Europe, we just don’t have a FAIR to systematically investigate it. This is – roughly – what I wrote in 2008 to the editor of Poland’s biggest and most influential daily ‘Gazeta Wyborcza’, quote:
“On 21-08-2008 I saw on your front page, in huge, black, wall-to-wall capitals: TRAGEDY IN AFGHANISTAN
I feared that the umptiest earthquake had leveled Kabul; that one of the US planes flying by night from Bagram airbase had mistakenly dropped its bombs on a Kabul orphanage (collateral damage); that the taliban had killed the entire government; that all 634 prisoners held [at that time] in Bagram prison had suffocated when the main generator had broken down, blocking the airconditioning and the steel doors to windowless cells.
But no, three Polish soldiers had been killed in battle …
This of course is indeed a tragedy for their families and loved ones, with in my opinion the biggest tragedy being that these young men died for no other reason than to satisfy overgrown international ambitions of some politicians and generals and enrich arms producers. In the light of what is going on in Afghanistan, however, we should keep in mind that these victims were professional soldiers, paid for their work and that death and loss of physical or mental abilities is part & parcel of their professional hazards, as opposed to killed or maimed local civilians.
Does attracting readers justify such exploitation of national emotions?
Does one killed Pole sell better than 20 killed Afghans?
If it is not a question of marketing, I can only conclude that you indeed consider the life of three Poles to be incomparably more valuable than that of the 76 anonimous Afghan civilians, about whose massacre a tiny less-than-one-column mention appeared two days later (Saturday 23-08-2013), hidden somewhere on page nine …:
Massacre
of Afghan
Villagers
While on the front page that same day, there were again huge, black capitals: INTERNET FOR PEANUTS.”
Unquote