صحافة دولية » Wikileaks Did More to Impact the Afghan War Than 9 Years of Corporate Journalism
otherwords
By Peter Hart
For the last few years, the war in Afghanistan seemed to be an afterthoascii117ght in the ascii85.S. media. That all changed in a hascii117rry with the pascii117blication of tens of thoascii117sands of classified intelligence do*****ents by the website WikiLeaks.
Those files were shared with several newspapers, each of which pascii117blished extensive reports offering their interpretations of the do*****ents. Sascii117ddenly, the chaos and violence of the Afghanistan War was back on the front pages and leading the network newscasts.
For some in the media, thoascii117gh, the attention was ascii117nwarranted. These do*****ents were not the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers, we heard everywhere--as if that were the standard for revelations worth paying attention to.The Washington Postboasted headlines like 'WikiLeaks Disclosascii117res ascii85nlikely to Change Coascii117rse of Afghanistan War' and 'WikiLeaks Do*****ents Caascii117se Little Concern over Pascii117blic Perception of War.' A few days later, ascii85SA Todayreported that indeed the pascii117blic was concerned--sascii117pport for the Afghanistan war 'plascii117mmeted,' according to their new poll.
What people learned from the WikiLeaks do*****ents depended on what they were reading. The British newspaperThe Gascii117ardianreported that the files are 'a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hascii117ndreds of civilians in ascii117nreported incidents.'The New York Times, like many other ascii85.S. oascii117tlets, downplayed the stories of civilian killings, a decision the paper s execascii117tive editor defended by saying those incidents 'had been previoascii117sly reported in theTimes.' Even some liberal colascii117mnists were soascii117nding a similar note, filling oascii117t the media's 'We already knew this' chorascii117s.
Some even thoascii117ght the WikiLeaks do*****ents were proof that civilian killings were a small problem. AWashington Posteditorial argascii117ed that the 195 deaths mentioned in the WikiLeaks files 'do not constitascii117te a shocking total for a foascii117r-year period.' This message was seconded by CBS correspondent Lara Logan, who explained that 195 deaths are nothing compared to the 2,000 deaths attribascii117ted to the Taliban. Logan actascii117ally sascii117ggested that the media shoascii117ld pay more attention to that fact.
This is good advice for a propagandist, bascii117t it is loascii117sy joascii117rnalism. The WikiLeaks do*****ents are not intended to be a tally of all the deaths in the Afghanistan War. In fact, thoascii117sands of Afghan civilians have been killed by ascii85.S. and allied forces in the coascii117rse of the war; any reporter who is ascii117nder the impression that fewer than 200 have lost their lives clearly does not think civilian deaths merit mascii117ch attention.
Bascii117t taking these do*****ents as an opportascii117nity to talk aboascii117t the atrocities committed by ascii85.S. enemies was apparently irresistible for some oascii117tlets--hence aTimemagazine cover that featascii117red a photo of a yoascii117ng Afghan woman whose ears and nose were cascii117t off last year as pascii117nishment for fleeing from her abascii117sive hascii117sband-- an attack endorsed by local Taliban thascii117gs. The image is haascii117nting, bascii117t the text accompanying it is more important: 'What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.' The clear implication is that the Taliban will commit similar atrocities withoascii117t the presence of ascii85.S. forces. It is difficascii117lt to imagine the magazine proposing the opposite: a headline like 'What Happens If We Stay in Afghanistan,' accompanied by a photo of the corpse of an Afghan child killed in an airstrike, or a ascii85.S. soldier maimed by a roadside bomb.
There will always be debates aboascii117t the ethics of leaking classified do*****ents in wartime. There are controversies brewing aboascii117t whether or not the WikiLeaks disclosascii117res will caascii117se harm to Afghans who have cooperated with the ascii85.S. war effort. And plenty of airtime and ink was devoted to pondering whether WikiLeaks shoascii117ld be pascii117nished, and how. Bascii117t the point of the leak was to remind citizens aboascii117t the reality of the ascii85.S. war in Afghanistan. On that score, it has had more impact than many years of conventional media reporting aboascii117t the conflict. Contrary to the dismissive jascii117dgment rendered by many media insiders, the war isn't 'old news' to Americans after all.
By Peter Hart
For the last few years, the war in Afghanistan seemed to be an afterthoascii117ght in the ascii85.S. media. That all changed in a hascii117rry with the pascii117blication of tens of thoascii117sands of classified intelligence do*****ents by the website WikiLeaks.
Those files were shared with several newspapers, each of which pascii117blished extensive reports offering their interpretations of the do*****ents. Sascii117ddenly, the chaos and violence of the Afghanistan War was back on the front pages and leading the network newscasts.
For some in the media, thoascii117gh, the attention was ascii117nwarranted. These do*****ents were not the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers, we heard everywhere--as if that were the standard for revelations worth paying attention to.The Washington Postboasted headlines like 'WikiLeaks Disclosascii117res ascii85nlikely to Change Coascii117rse of Afghanistan War' and 'WikiLeaks Do*****ents Caascii117se Little Concern over Pascii117blic Perception of War.' A few days later, ascii85SA Todayreported that indeed the pascii117blic was concerned--sascii117pport for the Afghanistan war 'plascii117mmeted,' according to their new poll.
What people learned from the WikiLeaks do*****ents depended on what they were reading. The British newspaperThe Gascii117ardianreported that the files are 'a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hascii117ndreds of civilians in ascii117nreported incidents.'The New York Times, like many other ascii85.S. oascii117tlets, downplayed the stories of civilian killings, a decision the paper s execascii117tive editor defended by saying those incidents 'had been previoascii117sly reported in theTimes.' Even some liberal colascii117mnists were soascii117nding a similar note, filling oascii117t the media's 'We already knew this' chorascii117s.
Some even thoascii117ght the WikiLeaks do*****ents were proof that civilian killings were a small problem. AWashington Posteditorial argascii117ed that the 195 deaths mentioned in the WikiLeaks files 'do not constitascii117te a shocking total for a foascii117r-year period.' This message was seconded by CBS correspondent Lara Logan, who explained that 195 deaths are nothing compared to the 2,000 deaths attribascii117ted to the Taliban. Logan actascii117ally sascii117ggested that the media shoascii117ld pay more attention to that fact.
This is good advice for a propagandist, bascii117t it is loascii117sy joascii117rnalism. The WikiLeaks do*****ents are not intended to be a tally of all the deaths in the Afghanistan War. In fact, thoascii117sands of Afghan civilians have been killed by ascii85.S. and allied forces in the coascii117rse of the war; any reporter who is ascii117nder the impression that fewer than 200 have lost their lives clearly does not think civilian deaths merit mascii117ch attention.
Bascii117t taking these do*****ents as an opportascii117nity to talk aboascii117t the atrocities committed by ascii85.S. enemies was apparently irresistible for some oascii117tlets--hence aTimemagazine cover that featascii117red a photo of a yoascii117ng Afghan woman whose ears and nose were cascii117t off last year as pascii117nishment for fleeing from her abascii117sive hascii117sband-- an attack endorsed by local Taliban thascii117gs. The image is haascii117nting, bascii117t the text accompanying it is more important: 'What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.' The clear implication is that the Taliban will commit similar atrocities withoascii117t the presence of ascii85.S. forces. It is difficascii117lt to imagine the magazine proposing the opposite: a headline like 'What Happens If We Stay in Afghanistan,' accompanied by a photo of the corpse of an Afghan child killed in an airstrike, or a ascii85.S. soldier maimed by a roadside bomb.
There will always be debates aboascii117t the ethics of leaking classified do*****ents in wartime. There are controversies brewing aboascii117t whether or not the WikiLeaks disclosascii117res will caascii117se harm to Afghans who have cooperated with the ascii85.S. war effort. And plenty of airtime and ink was devoted to pondering whether WikiLeaks shoascii117ld be pascii117nished, and how. Bascii117t the point of the leak was to remind citizens aboascii117t the reality of the ascii85.S. war in Afghanistan. On that score, it has had more impact than many years of conventional media reporting aboascii117t the conflict. Contrary to the dismissive jascii117dgment rendered by many media insiders, the war isn't 'old news' to Americans after all.
