Media Downplays America's Bombing Of Civilians In Mosul

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Ben Norton via TheAntiMedia.org,

If you read the headlines of major corporate media outlets, you’d think hundreds of Iraqi civilians in Mosul coincidentally died in the same location that just so happened to be hit by a US airstrike.

A March 17 US attack in the city of Mosul resulted in a massacre of civilians. The monitoring group Airwars estimated that between 130 and 230 Iraqis were killed in the incident. Iraqi media reported similar figures.

Civilian victims of the US-led bombing campaign to oust ISIS from the major northern Iraqi city, which has been terrorized by the extremist group for three years, have received little media coverage.

The Washington Post (3/28/17) noted, nevertheless, that the recent airstrike “was potentially one of the worst US-led civilian bombings in 25 years.”

Yet just a few days before the Post published this stark fact, leading news networks went out of their way to craft some of the most euphemistic headlines imaginable.

ABC News (3/25/17) took the cake, giving its report the disjointed title “US Reviewing Airstrike That Corresponds to Site Where 200 Iraqi Civilians Allegedly Died.” (This story was also syndicated by Yahoo News3/25/17.)

mosul

Note that the Iraqis simply died; they weren’t killed. The airstrike was a mere temporal and geographic coincidence.

The Los Angeles Times (3/25/17‎) used similarly obfuscatory language, with the headline “US Acknowledges Airstrike in Mosul, Where More Than 200 Iraqi Civilians Died.” This article, which was republished by the Chicago Tribune (3/25/17), made it sound like 200 Iraqis have been killed in all of Mosul.

mosul

The day before, however, the LA Times (3/24/17‎) had printed another report that provided much more context: “More Than 200 Civilians Killed in Suspected US Airstrike in Iraq.”

In a slight improvement, the Washington Post (3/25/17) at least used the word “killed”—or, rather, “Allegedly Killed”—for its story: “US Military Acknowledges Strike on Mosul Site Where More Than 100 Were Allegedly Killed.”

But it was not just American outlets that used such watered-down language. France 24 (3/25/17) wrote, underwhelmingly, “US-Led Coalition Confirms Strike on Mosul Site Where Civilians Died.”

Headlines are the most important part of news articles; they greatly influence what the public thinks about political issues. In fact, studies show that most Americans don’t read beyond headlines.

These latest whitewashed titles are remarkably reminiscent of those composed to cover (up) a previous high-profile US massacre of civilians: the October 2015 US bombing of a Doctors Without Borders–operated hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (FAIR.org, 10/5/17). The New York Times published a masterpiece of propaganda with the headline “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital.” Ambiguous language, heavy use of the passive voice and awkward wording abounded.

Some ostensible news outlets even contradicted themselves in reporting on the recent Mosul attack. Right-wing website the Daily Caller (3/27/17) published an article misleadingly headlined “Iraq: ISIS, Not US, Responsible For Killing 200 Civilians.”  Author Saagar Enjeti tried to exculpate the US for the atrocity, instead blaming ISIS. Yet in his piece, Enjeti was compelled to acknowledge that the details were murky, and that an Iraqi officer had said “the blast was caused by an airstrike called on ISIS snipers on the roof of a building.”

Later, when the commander of the US-led task force fighting ISIS tepidly admitted, “My initial assessment is that we probably had a role in these casualties [in Mosul],” slightly more direct reports slowly came trickling out. But even after the dust settled and the facts became clearer, media continued to downplay their severity.

In one of the more eyebrow-raising headlines, the New York Times ran a story on the front page on March 29 with the paltry headline “US Concedes It Played a Role in Iraqi Deaths.” (It appeared online on March 28 with the “US ‘Probably Had a Role’ in Mosul Deaths, Commander Says.”)

mosul

What was that role, exactly? Well, carrying out the airstrike that killed them. But let’s not split hairs.

While major corporate media largely echoed the US government line, independent left-wing news outlets, on the other hand, were immediately much more straightforward in their reporting. “With 200+ Iraqi Civilians Feared Dead, Carnage Surging Under Trump,” wrote Common Dreams (3/26/17‎), for instance.

Little Media Attention

Given the extreme brutality of ISIS, a genocidal Salafi jihadist group that has slaughtered civilians from religious and ethnic minority groups in Iraq and Syria, it is perhaps understandable that much of the media attention is on its crimes.

But the atrocities committed by the forces fighting it cannot be ignored. Such an approach is a recipe for disaster, as the so-called Islamic State has demonstrated a tendency to exploit Western atrocities for propaganda and recruitment.

Little ink has been spilled in the US media for those victims, nonetheless. According to the monitoring group Airwars, as many as 1,000 civilians were killed by US-led coalition actions in Iraq and Syria just in the month of March (Democracy Now!, 3/27/17).

Many more civilians have been killed in the past two years (Intercept8/3/15), yet their deaths have received little attention by major corporate news networks, even when they may help fuel the very extremist group whose monstrousness was used to justify them.

In fact, the US dropped more than 12,000 bombs on Iraq (and another 12,000 on Syria) in 2016 alone, with little media scrutiny.

There was no real public discussion, let alone political debate, about whether or not US bombing ISIS would be a good idea, not to mention whether or not Western airstrikes can actually defeat a guerilla extremist group like ISIS (Extra!, 11/14). After all, it was the illegal US-led invasion and subsequent decade-long military occupation of Iraq, in addition to intervention in the war in Syria, that led to the rise of the hyper-sectarian Islamic State in the first place.

To its credit, the Washington Post (3/24/17) published another article, amid the widespread media whitewashing of the Mosul airstrike, titled “Airstrike Monitoring Group Overwhelmed by Claims of US-Caused Civilian Casualties.” The newspaper acknowledged:

“In the last week, three mass casualty incidents have been attributed to US-led forces in Iraq and Syria, making March one of the most lethal months for civilians in the the two-year-old war against the Islamic State.”

Defenders of corporate media might argue that news outlets had to craft carefully worded headlines as the US government was still investigating the attack. But again, this simply reflects media’s deference to power. If the government says something, there are countless journalists waiting in line to obediently echo it. Corporate media have a long, tried-and-true history of acting as stenographers to power.

The Art of Euphemism and Inconstant Skepticism

A quick look at other instances in which media employ this kind of euphemistic language is instructive. These whitewashing tools are reserved almost exclusively for reports on the crimes of those in power.

Police frequently benefit from this linguistic sleight-of-hand. When cops shoot and kill unarmed civilians, the deaths are referred to as “officer-involved shootings” (FAIR, 7/11/16).

A crutch is made out of the passive voice. Cops don’t fire their guns and shoot people; their guns are magically “discharged,” as if of their own accord.

“Alleged” is ubiquitous and abused: Police “allegedly” shot someone, media insist, even when there is video of the cops shooting them.

These tricks are employed even more frequently, and egregiously, in reports on atrocities committed by the US and its allies. And while media outlets invariably give the US the benefit of the doubt, Western enemies are not afforded the same luxury.

In Syria, for instance, civilian casualty estimates after airstrikes carried out by the Syrian government and Russia are reported exclusively based on the accounts of rebels and “activists,” some of whom have received extensive support from foreign countries committed to overthrowing the Syrian government (AP, 11/29/15, 4/28/16, 11/19/16; Reuters, 1/11/16; CNN, 9/26/16).

mosul

The incredulity exhibited in the reports on the US attack in Mosul starkly contrasts with the dogmatic certitude reflected in the incessant barrage of thinly sourced stories on Syria, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, China and beyond.

This is how US media operate: Staunch skepticism is reserved for reports on the crimes of the US and its allies, whereas rumors and myths are reported as facts when they shine negatively on enemy governments.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JRobby's picture

Carlin: "we love war, we are a war like people"

Tallest Skil's picture

It's Islam. There are no civilians by the definition of their ideology.

Ignatius's picture

You're so full of shit.  Troll much?

The media sure made hay over alleged civilian bombing deaths in Aleppo by Russia.

DontGive's picture

Can one of you maff weezards extrapolate when all of Africa will get rubbleized?

VWAndy's picture

 Rough estimate 7 hundred years ago.

manofthenorth's picture

US & NATO "rubbleized" the shit out of Libya already.

" Mission Accomplished"

'Merica, we're gonna free the shit out of ya !!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHsFlaTM0k

The central planners's picture

Remember when CNN downplayed when Obama admit was behind the Ukraine maidan coup in 2014? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUNCsT8TjU 

buckstopshere's picture

The Ottoman Empire sure takes a long time to die.

I am Jobe's picture

Killing Brown People is sport. How come US is not in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc bombing the shit out them. 

Support our Troops 

silverer's picture

Give them some time. It's a long list. And somebody has to buy the Treasury notes to finance it all.

realestateroadkill's picture

Because for the most part, they ARE NOT ISLAMIC TERRORISTS hellbent on killing or enslaving everyone else. Attributing it to 'brown people" means you are one dumb raycisss a--hole. I would prefer that we bomb them till the only ones surviving become Methodists or Buddists or any other religion not killing other people because they don't share the same religion as the Islamic terrorists.

Jayda1850's picture

There is no oil in those countries 

Ace006's picture

Black and brown people destroying white societies . . . . Now THAT's sport.

Consuelo's picture

 

 

"The airstrike was a mere temporal and geographic coincidence."

 

Perfect description.

 

(6) is it...?   Major media outlets which control the flow of information...?

And they get their marching orders from -- who again?

And those marching orders coincide with both a foreign And domestic policy which reflects a bias towards what brand of worldview?


The comeuppance, which unfortunate American peons will bear the brunt of, is best not contemplated at this point. 

Troy Ounce's picture

 

 

The Guardian UK must be one of the worst newspapers in the world. CRINGE ALL THEY WAY.

If they could lick Georges Soros' asseblief, they would. 

dizzyfingers's picture

Hey, hey, USA, how many kids did you kill today?

 

Reminds me of the 1960s, just as bitter, just as shameful, just as disgusting.

Raul44's picture

They have to keep up to compete with their "Greatest Allies".

Blackhawks's picture

Who are the terrorists?

VWAndy's picture

 Catch 22 bitches. Its kinda hard to critizise an Obama policy the msm was fully behind for 8 fricken years. Even if the evil Trumpster is doing it now. Fact is the uniparty/big brother is still running the show.

 The only option is to pretend its not happening.

Games Without Frontiers's picture

Hmmmm, how about Freedom Fries to all surviving family members. Not enough? After all we've done for you.....

VWAndy's picture

 Its kinda funny but not in that to call Trump out on this shows rather clearly there are not two parties. Only one and its all about killing for fun and proffit.

VWAndy's picture

 Is it just me or is the red Dons policy on killing everything the same as Obamas?

Smedley's picture

Look, we've been takin' out these 'civilians' for a long time now, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. It's about gettin' er done, man!

I mean who would actually have a problem with this?

:D

Can I get some Freedom Fries with my 3rd degree burns, please?

VWAndy's picture

 Bombing our way to greatness.

TheOpposition.'s picture

Every war is always full with collateral damage and the civilians are a part of that. How many civilians were killed under Obama??? Its a media secret and hidden for a reason yet we know 100's of thousands have died and millions displaced due to left wing policy.

Jayda1850's picture

Yeh because the right wing policies of Bush didn't kill any civilians, but keep blaming the left and Obama. People like you who brush aside the atrocities of your "team" are why these atrocities will never end. Try to pull your head out of your ass before you comment.

VWAndy's picture

 As long as Trump keeps bombing he will get a second term.

IranContra's picture

Why Russia Could Not Defeat ISIS With Iran's Help

Trump said that he knows more about ISIS than the generals. Indeed he does, and that's why he is targeting Iran.

Kazem Alonezan, leader of the clans council of Southern Iraq said this: "I went to a hospital in Tehran (Iran) to visit a wounded relative of mine from Badr (pro-Iranian Iraqi shiite militia fighting against ISIS in Iraq). I entered the wrong hospital floor, and I was shocked to see an ISIS man in every bed! How dare they treat ISIS and our soldiers who are fighting them in the same hospital?"

ISIS is Iranian militia

Go figure! I guess as long as it is not Iranian blood that is spilled, who cares?

They are not prisoners. The article lists many proofs that Iran runs ISIS. Iranian militias share the same Iraqi territories with ISIS. ISIS are Iranian militias.

To explain the conflicts in Persian culture, a British diplomat wrote a famous novel:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hajji-baba-of-ispahan

"HAJJI BABA OF ISPAHAN, hero of The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Ispahan by James Justinian Morier (3 vols., London, 1824), the most popular Oriental novel in the English language and a highly influential stereotype of the so-called “Persian national character” in modern times. Morier (1782-1849), a former diplomat who had resided in Persia for nearly six years (1808-1809 and 1810-1814) at a critical juncture during diplomatic entanglements with European powers, fashioned his novel on his personal observations and direct knowledge about Persia, but with a decidedly hostile and satirical overtone. An Orientalist project parexcellence, Hajji Baba lampoons Persians as rascals, cowards, puerile villains, and downright fools, depicting their culture as scandalously dishonest and decadent, and their society as violent."

VWAndy's picture

 You cant best the fiat fighting on the fiats terms.

  Now if the Russians really wanted to defete the fiat army they would go after the paymasters and kill the payroll system. Not hard to fugure out really. All they have to do is look for it.

sinbad2's picture

Well I spoke to a bloke, who's brothers daughter was gong out with Mr Spock, and he reckons its the Klingons.

Youri Carma's picture

Just lovely. ISIS is just an other name for the former Al CIAda funded by the U.S. and the Arabs in order to keep the war racket going and destabilize the Middle-East. Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen are in complete chaos thanks to the U.S. of A.

One World Mafia's picture

Mr. Chump is quietly droning/genociding Yeman and selling weapons to the Saudis to do likewise.  Every US point of attack is an energy connected region, Yeman being a world oil shipping chockepoint and Syria a route mapped out for a Qatar pipeline.  We got another sociopath in the White House.

Smerf's picture

At this point , the only person qualified to be President is a sociopath.

sinbad2's picture

And always has been, to be loved by the American people you have to kill on a grand scale, that's why Lincoln is revered.

Smerf's picture

Staunch skepticism is reserved for reports on the crimes of Mothers, whereas rumors and myths are reported as facts when they shine negatively on Fathers.

MuffDiver69's picture

Not sure why this is such concern...No one is cheering, but what happened in some village somewhere we don't hear about or Chiraq last night...I don't make blanket equivocation, but let it go

sinbad2's picture

The US killed half a million Iraqi children, and the American media didn't report it, why would they care about a few hundred?