Lesson 4 of journalism: We’re the good guys
What you have to remember is that we're the good guys. When we kill people, it's a bit of an oopsie - although of course when other people kill us, they're evil scum who hate our freedom. Forget for a moment that lobbing giant bombs at people - whether you think they're 'militants' or 'insurgents' or not, and even if you think it's best to blow up people rather than capture them - brings with it a slight attendant risk of actually harming people who may *not* be bad folk. Forget all that - when judging the actions and the behaviour of 'friendly' nations, you must consider at all times that we're the good guys. If we blow someone up, we clearly didn't mean to, unless they were A Bad Man, in which case, they deserved to die and we did The Right Thing.
Such is the language of our war in the Middle East. Whenever 'our boys' are decapitated, torn to pieces, shot to death or wounded, they are 'heroes'. Whenever 'our boys' do the killing, they are 'heroes' and their victims are mere 'insurgents' or 'militants'. On those rare occasions when 'our boys' make a mistake, then it's just 'one of those things' that happens when you illegally invade another country and use enormous weapons in a civilian area - just like the weather, it's just something that happens sometimes.
One story that didn't make a very prominent appearance in our media yesterday - and who can blame them for relegating it, when there are much more important matters such as Countdown numbers-game people not getting as much money as they wanted - was the story of two children being shot to death by Nato soldiers in Afghanistan.
Let's see the non-partisan way in which AFP presents the story on the wires:
KABUL (AFP) — NATO-led soldiers killed two children after opening fire on a car that failed to slow down near a military patrol in southern Afghanistan, the alliance's force said Monday.
Oopsie! Well I'm sure there was a jolly good reason for doing so. Our boys wouldn't make such a terrible mistake unless it was entirely someone else's fault, would they? Remember, we're the good guys!
The incident in the Taliban-troubled province of Kandahar on Sunday followed a similar one in neighbouring Helmand province on Saturday in which the troops killed four civilians.
There were two incidents? I don't even remember reading about the first one, in which four civilians were killed. Is this just some casual thing that happens nowadays - soldiers are allowed to shoot whomever they choose at checkpoints? And that's all right?
But see the first germ of justification in that paragraph: remember, we're the good guys and we're in a 'Taliban-troubled' place.
In the latest incident, the troops "opened fire on a vehicle being driven in a threatening manner and ignoring warnings, killing two child occupants," NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.
Ah, see, it must have been the driver's fault for not understanding the signals. Which I am sure have been broadcast and explained to all citizens in Afghanistan, haven't they? Or... have they? And 'driving in a threatening manner'? What does that mean? How can you threaten people with guns when you're just in a car? Clearly what appears to have happened is that the driver was clocked as being a possible suicide bomber, so the forces opened fire. But they were wrong.
The troops opened fire after the driver ignored "hand, arm and audio signals" to keep its distance from the patrolling convoy, it added.
"When the vehicle was 10 metres away and still approaching rapidly, the ISAF soldiers, fearing an attack, fired on it."
Maybe it was trying to overtake? I know soldiers must be bricking it when they see a car approaching, but isn't it kind of the point of being an occupying force that sometimes these things are going to happen? Doesn't it come with the territory of invading someone else's country?
There have been several such incidents in recent years. International forces, here to help Afghanistan fight a Taliban-led insurgency, are a key target for suicide bombings and other attacks.
Ah, so that's what the occupying forces were there for. Thank goodness we have the impartial journalist to tell us what the mission of the Nato forces is 'here'! How sweet to think that those men who opened fire on children - trained killers shooting children from 10 metres away - were only 'here to help'.
You'll remember from lesson 3 that journalists don't like upsetting the apple cart by questioning the actions or behaviour of our friendly forces, even when they commit unspeakable crimes by killing civilians. It's the same thing again: We are the good guys. That's always the starting point for any such story.
Media Lens has the usual excellent coverage of the story I looked at in lesson 3, looking back at the reports of the atrocity that took 52 lives and how it was largely ignored. As ever, they don't go for the easy targets that I choose, like the Mail and Express, but the supposedly 'serious' press:
On July 12, the Guardian devoted 307 words to the attack on the wedding party. The killing of 39 women and children was not considered front page news - the story was buried on page 30.
Meanwhile, over at Murdoch Towers - the same folk who were recently trying to bully Media Lens:
On the same day, a 490-word article in the Times focused on the fate of nine British troops injured when a US helicopter accidentally targeted them in a "friendly fire" incident. Six of the nine soldiers have since returned to duty, with three still receiving medical treatment. While 447 words were devoted to this story, the article concluded with two sentences totalling 43 words on the killing of the Afghan civilians
And there's also an interesting examination of the use of the word 'militant' and the continual excusing of slayings as mistakes:
Certainly it is reprehensible to kill with intent. But is it any better to kill without intent when the likely consequences for our victims are so irrelevant that they do not even enter our minds?
It is if you're the national press.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
July 29th, 2008 - 19:19
The thing I’ve loved most recently was the overwhelming spin made by NATO or whoever it was to the papers that the “Taliban” were on the run and that we had the upper hand. Right on queue the on the run Taliban kill more British troops in a couple of months than they’ve managed in some years.
In response to this, the army/NATO brief that it’s because the Taliban are “resorting to terrorist and cowardly tactics” as a sign of desperation. There is of course absolutely nothing terroristic or cowardly about bombing buildings from however many thousand feet in the air, or piloting an unmanned drone from America which does the same thing. The reality is that the Taliban have learned from Iraq, and as the violence there has dropped (mainly thanks to the Awakening councils which are mostly formed by the other insurgent groups excluding al-Qaida in Iraq, who decided they didn’t fancy AQI’s brand of Sharia and summary beheadings), veterans from there have most likely made the journey and are helping with the other jihad.
History, as always, teaches us that Afghanistan has never been an united country, and has also never been conquered by a foreign force. Until we understand that we’re doomed to be there for potentially decades.
July 29th, 2008 - 20:19
Hmmmm….. I can certainly see your point about the inability of the press to report on the war impartially and I am certainly uneasy about our presence in Afghanistan (and totally opposed to our presence in Iraq) I do think you come across as a bit harsh on the poor sods on the spot.
A friend of mine recently got back from a tour of Afghanistan. Being RAF she never had to leave Kandahar air base but after 3 months of being mortared everyday she has now decided it’s time to get out. Another friend in the army currently out there is being shot at pretty much everyday.
Yes they are volunteers and not conscripts but if you are being shot at on a daily basis it is likely to make you pretty wary when cars drive at you and don’t stop.