"THEIR" WAR
From the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation:
Thousands of people have taken to the streets in London to protest against George W Bush and the war on Iraq. Organisers claim more than 150,000 have joined the march in central London, although police put the figure closer to 70,000.Protestors pulled down an effigy of Mr Bush to loud cheers in Trafalgar Square.
Meanwhile the US president has carried on with his engagements which have included talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair on Iraq and Aids in Africa.
The two leaders jointly condemned Thursday's bomb attacks in Turkey and reiterated their war on terror. (emphasis mine)
Their war. Not the war, the West's war, or, heaven forbid, our war against Islamist terrorism. It's Bush's and Blair's war to the BBC.
MORE: And here's what looks like another example of media bias. What would you think if you read a headline saying "Iraqi Leader Supportive of US Killed," with the subhead "Military Drops Massive Bombs in Central Iraq"? If you didn't read the story, you're likely to assume that the bombs we dropped had something to do with the Iraqi leader getting killed, right? That was the reaction of JG, who sent in a scan from a story in the Express, a free pub handed out to commuters on the DC Metro. It's published by the Washington Post. Here's the scan--click on it and you'll get the full-rez shot:
So what's the problem? Well, read the story. The pro-US Iraqi leader targeted--by car-bombers, not the US military--wasn't killed. He wasn't even injured. Some other leader was killed in an entirey different attack, but the story never makes his take on the US clear. One could reasonably assume he's fairly pro-US since he has a local leadership role in education, but it's by no means a slam-dunk. There are plenty of Iraqis running local affairs who aren't too keen on our presence. As for the bombs we dropped--well, that bit was just tacked on to the end of a story that otherwise has nothing do with the US military's response to terrorist strikes. The story is really about two terror attacks against two Iraqis, one of which succeeded in killing its intended target and one of which failed, instead killing a little kid. But if you just read the headlines, you're likely to come away with very different impressions, i.e, that the US military screwed up and killed one of the good guys.
Now, as I mentioned, the Express is a commuter pub. How many people actually take the time to read the stories and try and match their content up to the headlines? Having ridden the Metro during rush hour myself, I'd say very few. Which may be exactly what the headline writers were counting on.
MORE: And now we switch back to the Beeb, whose reporters ask fair questions such as "What do you say to people who today conclude that British people have died and been maimed as a result of you appearing here today, shoulder-to-shoulder with a controversial American President? And, Mr. President, if I could ask you, with thousands on the street -- with thousands marching on the streets today here in London, a free nation, what is your conclusion as to why apparently so many free citizens fear you and even hate you?"
Side note, who the heck is arguing that Blair and Bush appearing before the press has gotten anyone killed or maimed? That's the mother of all non sequiturs. Anyhow, want more? Here ya go--
"Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?"
How I wish he'd give that question the type of answer it deserves, like "Because they're addle-brained boobs, incapable of distinguishing between terrorists and elected leaders who try and stop terrorists. Or perhaps because they just like terrorists and hope to stop me from daisy cuttering them in large numbers."
Too bad we'll never hear that.
(thanks to Hanks for the Beeb briefing link)