Other Columns by Carol Devine-Molin
Carol Devine-Molin Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

In Times of War, Media Matters
By Carol Devine-Molin
July 8, 2002

Clearly, we are living in times of uncertainty and some trepidation. And, understandably, Americans increasingly wish to access accurate and dependable news information, given the ongoing "war on terrorism". This was corroborated by recent polling conducted by the Pew Research Center, in which two-thirds of respondents are now considerably more interested in news coverage since the September 11th attack occurred, a significant shift among the populace dubbed "the new media landscape" by the Pew organization.

But, interestingly, the Pew data also demonstrates that news consumers are evenly split on whether they are receiving trustworthy media accounts. Certainly, this reflects an underlying cynicism toward the news industry that has prevailed in this nation for quite some time. As could be expected, all polling suggests that Americans are seeking coverage that is truthful, in-depth, timely and unbiased, cogently rejecting of any information that is riddled with factual error and slanted by journalists.

Which brings to mind an important news story that took place this past week. On 7/1/02, the media widely reported that a US B-52 dropped an "errant bomb" that killed at least 250 people, wounding approximately 400 others, at an Afghan wedding in a village located southeast of the city of Kabul. If correct, a casualty rate of that considerable dimension would have reflected very poorly on our military efforts, with dire implications for US-Afghani relations. There was also speculation that celebratory gunfire by Afghani locals at the wedding may have been misconstrued as an attack upon US aircraft, triggering a US counter-strike. Moreover, news accounts have been strangely skewed, with over-emphasis upon accidental civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Of course there have been some unfortunate incidents, but this is to be expected in a highly dangerous war zone! Are American troops to be eventually cast by "media types" as Neanderthals who haphazardly waste people? I truly hope not. Initially, the media promulgated unfounded speculation about this episode, due to either laziness or liberal bias associated with the journalistic "herd mentality". In the absence of even preliminary US military information that was delayed a day or so, the media ran with bogus casualty numbers, and pure conjecture. That's lousy journalism, to be sure. From the get-go, it would have been far better if the media had underscored that details were sparse and inconclusive, rather than rendering false information.

And, upon reading initial news reports, I'm sure most people readily accepted the faulty accounts. However, lo and behold, the following day on July 2nd the military advised that it was highly doubtful that a B-52's errant bomb caused the melee. True, an errant bomb went awry, but it landed in an unpopulated area. Rather, the strike in question was most probably administered by an AC-130 attack aircraft that "met sustained and hostile fire that was not consistent with a wedding party" (Reuters, 7/2/02). Moreover, there were not 250 deaths involved as first reported. News accounts have been amended and now indicate that civilian deaths could possibly number about 30, but again, this too is nebulous and unsubstantiated. It has not even been confirmed whether "celebratory gunfire" (a quaint, but clearly idiotic tradition) was even implicated in this mess. Then, what can we conclude at the current time? Nothing for certain, since the investigation has not been completed.

As noted by the Department of Defense on 7/2/02, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Pentagon reporters that few facts are available since the investigation is just underway. US Air Force B-52 bombers and AC-130 gunships struck several ground targets, including anti-aircraft artillery sites that were engaging our aircraft over Oruzgan Province north of Kandahar, according to US Central Command. That mission, Rumsfeld said, was search and reconnaissance. And Pace noted that enemy forces in the area had been firing at coalition aircraft in recent weeks. US and coalition aircraft have the right to return fire if fired upon, he said". From what has now been garnered, it's safe to say that US aircraft were indeed responding to legitimate enemy fire on the ground, not just trumped-up "celebratory fire" as some news stories would have you believe. Interestingly, only about 19 women and children have been transported thus far to the hospital in Kandahar, suffering with varying degrees of war wounds. Granted, there could be more, but clearly this militates against a catastrophic attack as first reported.

And since the media has been invited in by the Department of Defense to observe the thorough investigation currently underway, this represents a good public relations move signaling that the US military has nothing to hide. Moreover, it's proper to insist that American media be responsible news professionals that provide reliable information to news consumers, especially in this time of war.