From ABC's World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson, October 17:
One item from Baghdad today. The news is... that there is no news. The police told us that, to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad and today no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.
How is it that when there has apparently been no major acts of violence in Baghdad that this is not news? Does this show the media bias toward the war that if there's no violence that there's no news? Should the lack of violence not be shown by every news outlet or it another example of if it bleeds it leads?
I just had the privilege of helping out a returning Iraq vet a few day's ago. I asked him how long he been back and he told me two days. He then told me they had been the worst two days of his life. He then went on to tell me his truck had gone into the water and was drowned so it was at home today drying out. And on the day I was helping him he had locked his keys in the car he was driving. I had to find his reaction to the two days he had been home being labeled as the worst two days a little ironic given the constant drum beat that things are horrible in Iraq. And that with the news being no news from Iraq made the whole thing stick in my head. I gave him my thanks for the job he does and told him if I could be of service to him in the future to give me a call.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
David I think that this is a glaring example of the old saying " If it bleeds it leads." And for those that are "supporting" the troops any time the deaths are down we should be glad and let it be known instead of ignoring it.