Selective Coverage

It so typical, that I almost don't want to post this. Video is avaiblable of the Saddam-era torture of Iraqi's in Abu Ghraib. Of course, this isn't news. Only American to Iraqi torture is something newsworthy to the media.

How does this affect our consciousness? In a couple of ways...primarily, the repeated showing of American Abu G photos shows a story in selective context. How can these abuses occur? People demand to know...and rightfully so. However, what happens is that we think the alternative to Abu G is some type of benign Iraqi prison system, some type of fair, "other" system that we don't even need to consider when considering the atrocities of American troops.

But this is simply not the truth. The truth is horrible torture occurred at Abu G long before American troops were there. I venture to guess the torture was as bad, if not worse. That is the context in which the Abu G images should be viewed.

So, you say, we're even. Iraqi and American's are no better than one another - and that's true, but doesn't get to the real point, which is:

We punish and condemn those individuals responsible for Abu G. Saddam would promote those involved with his Abu G. That's the difference, that's why we're in Iraq, and that's why what we're doing is legitimate. It is not because American's are better than Iraqi's or know anything better, it's simply the installation of a fairer, more just, and hence, more secure system.

And on another note, wouldn't uber liberals consider showing images of Saddam-era torturers a racist depiction of Arabs? News coverage tends to show Arabs as torturers and terrorists and this reinforces racial stereotypes we have....

I think they have a point...but in the end, what they end up saying is that we should only show American torturers and not Arab torturers. The argument being there are enough images of "good" Americans to counterbalance the torturer narrative, whereas there aren't enough "good" images of Arabs to counterbalance. The solution, me thinks, is to show images of "good" Arabs....see this post. A missed opportunity, I'd say, and by an uber liberal radio station.

But at the same time, when we end up advocating showing American torture and not Saddam-torture because of an attempt to be PC and just, it fails the "Common Sense" test. Why is American torture newsworthy and Saddam torture not? It is to say, an Iraqi death and torture is only tragic when it occurs at the hand of an American. It is not tragic or newsworthy or horrific if it happens at the hand of another Iraqi. It is simply common sense to be aware of the the alternative to American involvement in Iraq...which all too often gets lost in the fist pounding anger of all the bad things we are doing over there.