June 27, 2011

Whither War Coverage?

I noticed recently that the coverage of the conflict in Libya is very different from the coverage that we had of the conflict in Iraq. There are no daily body counts of our soldiers or of innocent persons, there is no constant coverage of anti-war demonstrators, no sound bites from major politicians opposed to the war, and no talking heads explaining how we went to war for the wrong reasons, or explaining that there was no way for us to win. To be clear, I didn't appreciate that type of coverage of the Iraq war, and I don't want to see its return. However, I find it significant that such was the coverage we had of a war during a Republican presidency and Congress. During a Democratic presidency, the coverage is mostly nonexistent. We hear snippets from time to time, but nothing much. It's almost as though the war does not actually exist. So apparently our mainstream media has decided that Republican presidencies should have its wars reported on via a steady drum signal of defeat, while Democratic presidencies are to have the war reported on as little as possible. I'm not sure about why the mainstream media would do that, because the obvious explanation, to make sure that in the next election, Republicans lose and Democrats win, would seem to suggest that one would constantly report the Democratic president's war as being constantly victorious and a good idea. Perhaps, however, people would notice the disconnect between the last election cycle, which was anti-war, and this current war. I'm not really sure of the reason, but I desperately long for some balanced and realistic coverage of the present conflict, instead of the constant airing of disgraceful celebrities' dirty laundry.