Monday, February 11, 2008

'Grim Milestone' Watch

If you want to see how much -- if at all -- the media narrative on Iraq has changed since the remarkable events of the past year, watch the headlines as the U.S. death toll there turns its next round number. It's at 3,960 today. At the current rate, the 4,000 bar will be crossed in about a month. Which will be roughly equivalent to The Wilderness spread out over five years instead of two days.

Will it be another tsunami of grim milestone headlines? I expect so. Anybody want to bet money against that?

Though there's a surface acknowledgement of relative calm in Iraq and opportunities for real progress there, the deep narrative has not changed in America's newsrooms.

Last month, a bomb attack on a U.S. convoy near Mosul, Iraq, killed five soldiers. It had been a long time since that many Americans died in one day in Iraq, and the deaths made front pages in many newspapers. Even the hometown paper in Colorado, where the soldiers lived, wrote of their deaths with scant reference to context, as though the men had been standing around doing nothing and got hit by lightning or an avalanche.

First came the bare recitation of the facts of the incident. Then a lot of statistics about the numbers of soldiers killed in this way or that way, from this place or that place. Then IDs of the dead men. Then more and increasingly arcane statistics about deaths, such as, “the post has lost four soldiers in single attacks three times since the war began.” Finally, deep into the story, came the description of what the dead men had been doing: backing up a major offensive against al Qaida thugs -- the kind who a few days later strapped bombs to mentally retarded women and turned a pet market into a scene from Hell.

Iraq is the new face of war. A hyperpower armed with billion-dollar satellite systems has its hands full with scruffy killers who use recycled washing machine timers to set off homemade bombs. This kind of war challenges the media, too. World War II could be covered by describing the front lines as they tightened around Hitler and Tojo. But in news articles from Iraq, soldiers and marines too often die without a cause or a context. War reporting consists of a mere list of names of fallen men and women, punctuated by “grim milestones” when a round number turns up.

Many in the media, as in the general population, do see the war this way, as a waste of life and a futile exercise in hubris. That this is not necessarily the view of others, especially those who have loved ones doing the heavy work in Iraq, causes the anger many Americans feel when they read such accounts in the news.

It would be a mere failure of the business model if the media wasn't a front in the new way of war. It is, and our enemies know this better than we do.

Labels:

Monday, January 01, 2007

Grim Milestone Watch

[posted by Callimachus]

You'll have to see these today, because the Newseum doesn't archive them, but here's a sample of big (36 point or higher) media headlines this morning featuring "Grim Milestone."

That's just a sample, mind you. And it doesn't count those who used some variation ("Grim number," "Somber milestone").

Every 100 deaths in Iraq is a "grim milestone," by fiat of the media. It is the most overworked cliché of local journalism since, "Rain couldn't dampen the spirits/enthusiasm of _____ graduates of _____ high school as they looked to the future and pondered the past during last night's commencement ceremony."

It requires no thought or reflection. It treats round numbers as the definition of reality, and an excuse to stoke pessimism -- this is not a headline for the present state of things in Iraq, remember; this has been a media trope since the first shots were fired ("After days of intense searching by ground and air, U.S. forces on Saturday found the bodies of two soldiers missing north of Baghdad, as the toll of American dead since the start of war topped the grim milestone of 200 ..." -- Associated Press, June 29, 2003; emphasis added).

Some will see this as simply calling a thing what it is. I see it as perilous group-think and an obsession with words and clichés over realities. I doubt anyone who wrote any of these headlines could explain to you why death number 3,000 was enormously more significant than death number 2,997. If it's true the American people can discern realities by simply reading facts, certainly we are capable of determining on our own what is a grim milestone without being led by the nose to it.

Does it help you to know these numbers divorced from context? Are there not many Americans who would consider, say, every 1,000 abortions nationwide a "grim milestone?" Even if you set 1,000 battle deaths (not the AP's preferred 200) as the benchmark for "grim milestones," you had a grim milestone every five days during America's involvement in World War II with nary a "grim milestone" headline to show for it.

UPDATE: Bill Quick has a few more.

Labels:

Friday, December 29, 2006

Hypocrites

[posted by Callimachus]

Back in 2005, at Fort Bragg, George W. Bush gave what was billed as a major speech on Iraq. He didn't say "Saddam was responsible for 9/11," but he might as well have, to judge from the reaction he got.

Bush suggested the Iraq insurgents shared a common "totalitarian ideology" with al-Qaida, and if the U.S. didn't defeat them in Iraq they would turn that country into a rich base for further attacks on the U.S. That narrative leaves a lot out of the story -- things Bush didn't want to talk about and his domestic political enemies did. But it seemed to me harmless and unobjectionable on the face of it.

Not to the legacy media, however. The New York Times railed against any mention of "9/11" and "Iraq War" in the same speech (in an editorial lost behind the subscription wall). In the Boston Globe, Bush was guilty of "playing the 9/11 card." At Salon, by using the two terms "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence, Bush was seeking a "Pavlovian response" from his audience. The Rocky Mountain News slammed any conflation of the two experiences.

Democratic politicians accused him of "exploiting the sacred ground," and the "progressive" bloggers shrieked like weasels.

In a tragic but arbitrary coincidence, the number of U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq passed 2,976 earlier this week -- coincidentally, the official number of people killed by terrorists in the U.S. on 9/11. You'd think, given this "absolutely-no-connection," "appalled-to-see-them-in-the-same-sentence" rhetoric from '05, that Democratic politicians, legacy media, and "progressive" bloggers would give it no attention.

You'd be wrong.

Now the death toll is 9/11 times two.

U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America’s history, the trigger for what came next.

The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

So, is big media seeking a Pavlovian response? Playing its 9/11 card? Trampling the graves of the honored dead?

Perhaps the Palme d'Or for hypocrisy goes to Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News, who, after Bush's 2005 speech, wrote, "Mentioning 9/11 and Iraq together is like giving a speech on Social Security and abortion ...."

What was his reaction this week? Social Security and abortion, anyone?

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

'Grim Milestone' Watch

[posted by Callimachus]

It's back.

"Now, as the nation approaches the grim milestone of 3,000 war fatalities ..."

From an AP story getting big play in my newspaper tomorrow (lede picture on A1, full story inside). This from a paper that could never be bothered to run a story about actual Americans doing anything in Iraq except dying. But has never missed a "grim milestone." This in a country where, as far as I can tell, the sole qualification to be the new Defense Secretary with overwhelming bipartisan approval is to go in front of Congress and the TV cameras and declare to the world America is defeated.

This from an Associated Press whose current photo wire (12/12 11:15 p.m. Eastern) features the following breakdown of "Iraq" photos going back through Sunday:

  • Pictures of U.S. military dead or their funerals: 17

  • Pictures of Cindy Sheehan: 7

  • File photos of U.S. military scattering or aiding wounded comrades after attacks (as part of its year-end round-up package): 2

  • Pictures from the upcoming movie release "Home of the Brave," which will tell "the story of three soldiers who return home to the United States after an unexpectedly gruesome tour of duty in Iraq": 1

  • Pictures of U.S. military in Iraq doing something other than being dead: 1 ["172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team soldiers greet a young Iraqi boy in central Baghdad's Karradah district, in this Oct. 27, 2006, file photo," again part of the year-end round-up].

Which is pretty consistent for the AP throughout this war. The carnage of Baghdad 2006 arrived in reality three years after the AP began enthusing over it.

Luckily for us, we also can read guys like this. Salute. Not just doing the soldier's job, but the media's as well.

Labels:

Monday, October 30, 2006

Night of the Grim Milestone

[posted by Callimachus]

Just in time for Halloween, the dreaded grim milestone image is back. This time it's 100 American soldiers killed in a month of war. This time it's Harry Reid using it, not the AP and the national media, though you could be forgiven for being unable to tell one of their writings from the another without a Geiger counter and litmus paper.

One question, though. What the fuck is a grim milestone?



This is a milestone. Is it grim? Is it merry? How can you tell? What sort of milestone is 90 soldiers killed? Or 2,000? Or 10? Or 1?

Labels:

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

"Grim Milestone"

Amazing, isn't it, hope they all had the same idea at the same time:

31


30


29


26


20


12


I found the same phrase, or a variation of it (including "Somber Milestone," "Grisly Milestone," "Grim Landmark," "Grim Marker," and "Wrenching Milestone") in the big boldface front-page headlines of at least 32 major U.S. newspapers today. Among those using the exact phrase, in addition to the papers pictured above, were the Oakland Tribune; the Santa Rosa, Calif., Press-Democrat; the Sacramento Bee; the Clarksville, Tenn., Leaf-Chronicle; and the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record.

The L.A. Daily News devoted its entire front pages to the 2,000 figure.

Among the most defeatist headlines of the day were the Aurora Daily Sun's "Deaths of an Army sergeant and two Marines pushes [sic] count amid growing doubts among public about conflict launched in March 2003 to find weapons that have never been found."

It's getting harder and harder to tell the reality --

lost

from the cartoon parody --

losing

[World War II Disney image courtesy of Lileks]

Labels:

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

And Tomorrow's Big Headline Is ...

... wait for it ...

U.S. HITS GRIM MILESTONE

Anybody looking for an early-in-the-day drinking game, take a shot every time you encounter the phrase "grim milestone" on the front page of one of the nation's major newspapers. It's the AP's buzzword.

Labels: