Crappy news coverage
Here’s the latest New York Times article on the Syrian response to the attack: “As If On Cue, Syrians Protest U.S. Incursion On Their Soil.” The article only exemplifies the rather distorted coverage of the event in the Western media.
Graham Bowley, the author of the article, writes “It would be highly unusual for a spontaneous demonstration to arise in Damascus [...]. Judging by other news accounts and images shown on television, it seemed likely that the government had orchestrated the protest, which looked precisely timed and organized.”
While literally true, I find this extremely misleading, because it suggests that Syrians don’t share the sentiment being expressed in the protest. I am sure that the protest was not “spontaneous,” but just because it enjoyed government sponsorship doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an expression of real anger. However, it would be difficult for Mr. Bowley to know this since he wasn’t in Damascus, as indicated by his repeated reference to the television programs by way of which he apparently formed his impression of events. Of course, it’s not easy to get a journalists’ visa to work in Damascus, which in this case does the Syrian point of view a disservice, but that’s no excuse for misleading writing.
Mr. Bowley also continued on to say, “The strike into Syria was by far the boldest by American commandos in the five years since the United States invaded Iraq and began to condemn Syria’s role in stoking the Iraqi insurgency.” Boldest? Perhaps the boldest in breaking international law and violating national sovereignty. But to choose such a word in this context makes the American forces sound like brave comic-book heroes.
I also wouldn’t mind knowing who all these unnamed “American officials” are, since most of the Western press is using them as their main sources.
Ayman said,
October 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Really disgusting. And what’s bold about the world’s most powerful military sending four helicopters to attack a civilian target?
Sarah said,
November 2, 2008 at 6:20 am
Agreed.
Natalie said,
November 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“It would be highly unusual for a spontaneous demonstration to arise in Damascus, where political speech is often punished and political protests are not tolerated” also seems to support your point about the article being misleading in that it implies that Syrians wouldn’t feel the urge to protest on their own. . . also, isn’t it likely that this particular political protest would, in fact, be tolerated if not even supported by the government?
That being said, I did find it interesting that Bowley used the words “strike” and “attack” interchangeably with “raid,” which actually seems rather “bold” for an American journalist. . . what do you think?