This morning, the newscaster on 980 AM (news/traffic in the L.A. area) said that searches related to the Nick Berg video had become the number one search on Lycos/Yahoo. I'd heard this before, but what struck me was the tone of slightly contemptuous horror that so many people were interested in a "snuff film."

There was no recognition that many people find the filmed decapitation of Nick Berg to be a particularly newsworthy event, despite the minimal degree of coverage in the mainstream media. It was explicitly compared to gawking at a roadside traffic accident--no appreciation was given to the possibility of a broader context.

Arrogant. Blinkered. Condescending. Typical.

They just don't get it, do they? Fortunately, competition breeds evolution. Even if it's a bit slower than we'd like.

I'm sure there are plenty of people searching for the Nick Berg video for the "right" reasons. And there are also plenty doing it for the wrong ones. And since it wasn't available anywhere but the Internet (unlike the Abu Gharib pictures), it stands to reason that there'd be more people searching for it. I'm not writing this to make excuses for the media if they're not covering it - just to point out that the swarm of blogosphere traffic is not all motivated by the purposes you'd like it to be.

Folks, citing web search traffic as evidence of a popular rebellion against the liberal media seems to be a poor argument. The fact that Paris Hilton was No. 2 ought to tell you something--or the fact that it always used to be Pamela Anderson.
I do think there's a bright line between Abu Ghraib and the Berg video (the same one that just about everybody observed in the case of Daniel Pearl, the liberal media's own). People who only saw a scene or two of the Berg video obviously wanted to see more, and they could only find it on the web. I don't think this should be make us say that the papers and CNN ought to have done exactly what Zarqawi wanted.
(Full disclosure: I didn't watch the Berg video. The descriptions I read, along with that initial shot everybody ran, were vivid enough!)
I sure hope this is not building into a "the media lost Iraq" storyline. That would make it harder to do the kind of honest assessment--and strategy change, if need be--necessary to get the Zarqawi's of the world without creating lots of new ones.

I sure hope this is not building into a "the media lost Iraq" storyline.

Have you notice that both Left and Right—or whatever we're calling them nowadays—are complaining about the media? I can't tell you how often I've heard complaints from the Left about the "constant drumbeat to war" in the media previous to the invasion of Iraq which I, for one, certainly don't remember. And then there's the complaints from the Right about covering Abu Ghraib rather than Nick Berg, losses in Fallujah rather than building schools, etc.

Just because everybody's unhappy about the media doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. I think rather that we've decided that the media are another interest group whose interests may be different from the rest of us.

> Have you notice that both Left and Right—or whatever we're calling them nowadays—are complaining about the media?

I think the problem with the media is that most of it is just plain unwilling to take a stand. When a conservative does or says something patently stupid, and the media fails to call them on it, the liberals cry "bias." When a liberal does or says something patently stupid and the media fails to call them on it, the conservatives cry "bias."

I actually think it's getting better. I actually think that having a bland media is the opposite of what you want. I'd like to see some "neutral" outlets, sure, but I'd also like to see a hefty list of both liberal and conservative outlets that are willing to pull no punches. I think that's gradually occurring.

BTW, here's what David Adesnik had to say bout the whole Berg vs Ghraib thing:

"There is no question that the media has made a subjective judgment that Abu Ghraib is far more important than the beheading of Nick Berg. But that is a judgment that I strongly endorse and for reasons that should be very familiar to conservatives.

We have known for a long time now that Al Qaeda has no shame and no respect for human life. No matter how gruesome, the beheading of Nick Berg did little more than confirm that fact.

In contrast, the events at Abu Ghraib have severely tarnished America's reputation as the foremost defender of democracy and human rights. In order to restore that reputation, we must ruthlessly pursue justice and punish those responsible for the abuses in order to ensure that this never happens again."

> There was no recognition that many people find the filmed decapitation of Nick Berg to be a particularly newsworthy event...

I'll call you on this.

I think the measure of a good news story is what it teaches us that we didn't already know. If a story really changes our view of the universe, then that's "News" with a capital N. If it merely reaffirms what we already know, it's mere propaganda.

First: would you agree with my analysis of what constitutes "News" with a capital N?

Second: in what way did the Nick Berg video change your view of the universe?

times are changing for where to get the news. while i no longer read the local newspaper and mostly skip the local news. i read more than ever on my PC. blogs that point to stories all over the world are the wave of the future. face it newspapers are going the way music cd sales from the local record store have gone. blogs also [good or bad] can have a target audience. which means publishing only the stories that the owner feels are relevant.

"Man bites dog" gets covered; "dog bites man" does not. Anti-human bias?

Josh,

The argument that the Berg beheading isn't news because we already know what it tells us is a poor argument.

The Berg video is just a video. Yet, as such, it is subject to interpretation, much like a video of a roadside US ambush. It is the interpretation that becomes the news. Reporters invariably ask the many questions that form the basis of their interpretation: what does the video show, who is involved, what is their explanation for their acts, what is the "real" explanation for their acts, what does this mean in the larger context of the insurgency.

Consider even the simple question: "what does the video show?" A murder? A beheading? Revenge? Religious fervour? A conspiracy? A political statement?

Consider another: "who is involved?" Anti-US insurgents? Regular Iraqis? Al Qaeda operatives?

Consider: "Why did they do it?" Rally jihadist forces around the globe? Terrorize occupation forces? Change US public opinion? Embolden anti-US forces? Retaliation for prison abuses?

The answers depend upon your interpretation of events, your perspective, your interests.

To pretend that these questions and their answers are non-interpretive events is another method that the left uses to conceal bias. (This is curious, since the left is well-acquainted with issues of interpretation, having deployed such arguments when it suits them.)

Whether you think the Berg incident shows something that we haven't seen before depends on your perspective, and perspectives are informed by interests. In this case, the old left media has an interest in downplaying the video.

I think most of us outside the left media know why this is.

Fox is biased, just like NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, BBC and everyone else who reports. It shows in their editting, selection and emphasis. It shows in the downplay of the Berg video. The best you can do is admit your bias and seek divergent opinions.

Check out this week's NewsWeek. In the middle of the "Roots of Torture" article that (I think) asserts that Rumsfeld was responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib, there is a still from the Berg video.

Nothing in the article refers to this murder scene.

Here and there in the magazine there are cryptic references to it:

CW gives Zarqawi a DOWN ARROW, but is short on details.

George Will talks about the Berg atrocity in his column, but otherwise NEWSWEEK treats this as if it is not newsworthy.

Bizarre, but then again I have seen nothing about the Oil for Food scandal in Newsweek either.

> It is the interpretation that becomes the news.

Yes, that's true, I didn't take that into account. I said, a story is interesting only if it leads us to an interesting conclusion. But you're right, a story can also be interesting if the process of reaching the conclusion takes a long time, and involves a lot of speculation, even if the final conclusion itself is uninteresting.

With Nick Berg, though, I don't see that happening either. What unanswered questions are there?

(You can omit unanswered questions that reflect badly on the US. I'm sure that Joe Katzman's goal wasn't to complain about a lack of anti-administration conspiracy theories.)

Here's an example of what I meant when I said "the problem with the media is that most of it is just plain unwilling to take a stand."

This is from a news story reporting on the wedding party that was gunned down in Iraq:

"Associated Press Television News obtained videotape showing a truck containing bodies of those allegedly killed. About a dozen bodies, one without a head, could be clearly seen."

I think, if the person's head is missing, then he wasn't "allegedly" killed. He was actually killed. This isn't bias, it's just an example of the media's excessive tendency to hedge to the point where it's just ridiculous.

Josh,

"I said, a story is interesting only if it leads us to an interesting conclusion."

My point is that the determination of "interesting" vs "non-interesting" involves interpretation.

"What unanswered questions are there?"

This depends on what question you ask and how you ask them. As I showed, above, there are many different questsion, using different vocabulary. The process of asking questions and providing answers is interpretive, and depends on perspective.

Using Andrew's example; "Dog bites man" might not be an interesting story if the dog was a mutt and the incident occurred in a city where mutts wander the streets and bite people occasionally.

But what if it occured in a city where there was a public debate about the danger of pitbulls, and the dog was, in fact, a pitbull?

What if it occured in a city where there was an outbreak of rabbies?

What if it occured in a neighbourhood where rival gangs keep guard dogs to defend their turf?

What if the context of the story was so fluid and changing that it could be a combination of the above, or if it wasn't clear what the context might be?

Here, the newsworthiness of a story depends on a journalist's interpretation of the context of the story. And this is for a simple "dog bites man" story. You could see how things get more complicated for Iraq.

Journalism is replete with interpretation. Like historical writing and film-making, it involves interpretation on multiple levels. I'm sure you've heard this argument before, because academics and cultural thinkers have been making it for years (something like it, about another subject, was made by Nietzsche much earlier, but that's another story).

Mark, I agree with all your abstract points. But let's get specific: the Nick Berg case. Name any one interesting unanswered question - not necessarily interesting to me, but interesting to you. Or, name an interesting lesson learned. Or, if you prefer, imagine you're an analyst and you have to write a 2000-word column about Nick Berg: tell me generally what you would write about, what would hold your interest for 2000 words.

Josh,

My "no recognition" remark was aimed specifically at the report I referenced, not more generally, in case that was unclear. I was not making the case that everyone looking for the video had motives that were socially acceptable--I was decrying the lack of recognition that anyone could be looking for it with the goal of self-education.

No, I think your definition of "News" is crap. News is information about (usually) current events that are important (for varying values of important). It is not the job of the news media to "challenge" their audience; it is their job to inform them. This means trying to generate a total picture of the world that is comprehensive, or failing that, representative.

The import of the Nick Berg video is not just the simple fact that he was brutally decapitated on film, as the "rubbernecker" comparison implies. It is the context--who is doing the decapitation, why, and what does this say about the larger world? You can have the abstract belief that "Islamic terrorists are ruthless and evil," but it makes no logical sense to therefore ignore all data points that support that belief, and dismiss them as propaganda!

Dave Schuler wrote (5:53pm):

Just because everybody's unhappy about the media doesn't mean they're doing the right thing.

Followed by interesting comments by Josh Yelon and others.

I think we don’t know what the “right thing” for the media is. Or rather, we do, except that:

--the multiple roles we envision are incompatible with one another, and

--there is no unitary “we.” Instead, we are a set of sub-groups with quite different perceptions and agendas.

I think these conflicts are illustrated by comparing US media in the European Theater 1942-45 with their linear descendants in Iraq in the spring of 2003. Some generalizations:

(1) Reporters saw themselves as part of the War Effort, as did their editors and their readers. In other words, they were partisan participants on the side of the Western Allies.

(2) Reporters also saw themselves as news gatherers, there to “tell the story.”

(3) Censorship, even self-censorship, was unremarkable, and accepted as necessary. Many reporters had access to pieces of the Overlord puzzle. The D-Day landings still took the Germans completely by surprise because reporters sat on what would have been the biggest scoop of their careers.

(4) “Embedding” with military units was also unremarkable, and seen as an opportunity to get close to the action, rather than as contaminating a reporter’s objective stance.

(1) and (2) conflict, inherently. There were conflicts between the Army and reporters--Gen. Patton’s with Bill Maudlin comes to mind--but I can’t recall any times where news organizations asserted that “the story” trumped “helping our side win.” (But I am not a historian, much less of WW2 journalism.)

The change in the culture of journalism from 1945 to 2003 is remarkable, in this light. (Sorry, no hyperlinks to follow; instead I’m putting out a broad argument.)

There was a torrent of contemporaneous criticism within journalism of reporters who sold their professional souls by acting as cheerleaders for the Coalition, rather than maintaining a detached, skeptical, even-handed outlook. The Pentagon was widely damned for inventing an ominous new tool of information control--embedding--as were news organizations that participated in the program.

Conversely, there was little or no criticism from within the journalism Establishment of reporters who rejected a partisan (pro-Coalition) stance for one of Even-Handedness. This held even when CENTCOM statements had proven to be generally correct, and the statements of Baghdad Bob to have no truth value.

And there was little or no criticism of those Coalition reporters whose war-zone dispatches seemed strongly biased against the Coalition’s war efforts. Peter Arnett, Andrew Gilligan, and Robert Fisk are the three who come readily to mind. They weren’t paid by our country’s enemies, but their efforts share some similarities with those of Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw.

In that light, the firestorms of criticism that didn’t follow CNN’s Eason Jordan’s mea culpa, the NYT’s John Burns’ J’accuse! piece, or Toby Harnden’s recent article (JK’s Disloyal Opposition I post) were predictable “dogs that didn’t bark”.

Ok, Josh. Let's say I choose to write about the Berg incident.

I say "The Berg video was released today by a group claiming responsibility. The video shows the murder of Berg."

I've called them a group. Why didn't I call them a terrorist organization. Why not "5 people"? Why not "5 Iraqis"? How do I know they are Iraqis? Are they foreigners? If so, who supports them? What is the manner of that support? What are their goals?

We aren't certain about much of this, and it seems important to the general insurgency; foreign driven/supported or home-grown or both? Petty crime or media event?

I've said the video shows a murder. Why didn't I choose the word "execution"? Execution has a more formal tone; states execute people, execution invokes the political rather than criminal, perhaps. It conveys a different sense. Do I mean to say that this group is a criminal gang? Do I know this for sure or is it an assumption I'm making to convey a certain meaning to my audience?

North American viewers are habituated to murders. Murders happen in my city every week. Big deal. Executions, however, are news. We don't see many of those. So if I wanted to influence my audience to ignore the Berg incident, I might call it a murder.

I could go on, but you see where I'm going. If you like, you can write one as well; try to do it while answering all the questions you think are interesting, and without any sign of bias.

There are many things we don't know about the Berg incident, and there are many different interpretations we could give it, even at its most basic level. Writing a report and filing it away as uninteresting involves interpretation, and, therefore, bias. We can hardly expect it not to, but let's just be honest about it.

> It is not the job of the news media to "challenge" their audience; it is their job to inform them.

I think the media did report the facts of Nick Berg's execution. What they didn't do was:

1. Play the entire unedited video, and
2. Spend a lot of time discussing and analyzing, the way they have with Abu Ghraib.

If you're trying to convince me that they should play the unedited video, then okay, you have no argument from me. I concede that point.

But a lot of blogs have been asking that Nick Berg receive as much coverage as Abu Ghraib - literally, pages and pages of newsprint, and hours and hours of television time. To do that, we'd obviously have to do more than just play the tape: that would only fill a few minutes of airtime, and it wouldn't fill any newspaper pages at all. To really grant you your wish, namely, that Nick Berg receive as much coverage as Abu Ghraib, we'd have to provide hours of television analysis and pages of newspaper commentary. That is what is being demanded of us.

My response to that demand was to issue a challenge: think of something interesting to say about Nick Berg. Think of anything interesting to say. I reissued that challenge three or four times, in different variants, but in response, nobody said anything about Nick Berg - instead, all I got was various comments about the role of the media. Surely, there must be something worth saying about Nick Berg, right?

My point was this: it's unfair of the conservative media to demand that liberals come up with analysis and discussion, when they themselves have nothing to say about it either.

Ah, crud. I post that comment, and simultaneously, Mark posts a reply that actually does say something about Nick Berg.

Josh,

"I think the media did report the facts of Nick Berg's execution."

I think this is where we differ. They didn't report "facts". They showed us some edited video, gave us their brief interpretation of the video with more or less controversial info abou it (Zarqawi? maybe, who knows), then dropped it. (Interestingly, to the extent that's it's being aired, some media outlets have accepted the terrorist narrative that it was in revenge for the prison abuse.)

What the media didn't do was attempt to place it in the larger background of the conflict in Iraq, as they have done ad nauseum with the prison scandal. They didn't ask the many questions of it that they are asking about Abu Ghraib; who else is involved, where does this trail lead, what is the effect of the pictures in Iraq or elsewhere, what does it say about the larger project, etc.

The speculation about Abu Ghraib has been fierce. The speculation about Berg has been timid. This is bias.

Josh & Mark,
I've been enjoying your thought provoking conversation.

Here's some follow up analysis that could have happened...

Compare and contrast this beheading with that of Daniel Pearl's. The Daniel Pearl story didn't disappear nearly as quickly as Nick Berg's. Why?

Discus how the killings were justified by claims of US infractions?

What are the similarities and differences of these claims?

Analyze the claim that the Abu Ghraib abuses led directly to Nick Berg's beheading.

Were both terrorist groups (Berg's & Pearl's killers) related to Al Qaeda, or acting on behalf of Al Qaeda? or not?

How do the hostages taken from other nations relate to this? Japan, Russians, etc.

What about the killing of the Italian citizen? Was it the same group? If not, what't the difference?

Is this related at all to the contractors killed and desecrated in Falluga?

> Why didn't I choose the word "execution"? ... If I wanted to influence my audience to ignore the Berg incident, I might call it a murder.

I think you're missing my point. The media hasn't been accused of choosing its words about Nick Berg in a biased manner. It has been accused of saying hardly any words about Nick Berg at all. True, the absence of a report can indicate bias. But it can also indicate the absence of a story. My goal is to separate the two possibilities by determining whether there's a story there or not. My challenge to you is to prove to me that there's a story.

Let me give you an example. I'm going to write a short paragraph about the Abu Ghraib tortures:

"Many people are shocked that seven people could do this and that nobody would notice. Personally, I have always envisioned our military as a well-oiled machine, and the chain of command as being rarely violated. To me, the very idea that an entire squad could go off like this without anybody in the chain of command noticing or caring is stunning. In fact, it raises the obvious question: is the chain of command always so fragmented, or was this an aberration caused by the stress of extended deployment? If so, then it seems to indicate a need to permanently enlarge the military, so we can avoid extended deployments in the future."

My paragraph up there shows that the Abu Ghraib torture altered my worldview (I thought the military was a well-oiled machine), it raised an interesting unanswered question (is the chain of command always so fragmented), and it raised a second unanswered question (should we enlarge the military). Given time for research, I could easily flesh that out to 2000 words. I just proved that there's a story there: there's something to say.

I'm asking you to do the same: convince me that given time, you would be able to compose an interesting essay about Berg.

Me:

"There was no recognition that many people find the filmed decapitation of Nick Berg to be a particularly newsworthy event...."

Josh:

"First: would you agree with my analysis of what constitutes "News" with a capital N?"

Me:

"No, I think your definition of "News" is crap. News is information...."

Josh:

"...in response, nobody said anything about Nick Berg - instead, all I got was various comments about the role of the media."

So I take it that last comment wasn't directed at me? Considering the top part of the post was, I must have missed the segue. You also did not directly address the role of the media question that you asked about earlier.

-----

Yes, I think the unedited video should have been run, with appropriate warnings for graphic violence. My main issue, though, was the pervasive implication that this was an isolated incident of continuing interest only to people who like snuff films.

As Mark so eloquently states above, there are many other factors involved that could have been pursued by investigative journalists or speculated on by pundits. Meanwhile, the Abu Ghraib situation gets massive press, despite the fact that justice is being done by the military justice system, and WAS being done BEFORE the issue made a big splash in the press. The courts-martial being convened in response to the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not driven by the press, despite the heavy implication otherwise in the mainstream media.

Abu Ghraib reflects poorly on the military chain of command that allowed the abuses to occur, and by implication in the press, on the entire U.S. military, the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the U.S. as a nation. The murder of Nick Berg reflects poorly on the five terrorists that murdered him, and by implication, on the Islamic terrorist movement as a whole. The mainstream media wallows in the first story, and all but ignores the second. I believe these two data points are highly indicative of a broader pattern that reveals their priorities--if there is an anti-U.S. implication, it goes on A1; if not, who cares?

Also, the answers to each of Lurker's questions above could easily run to 2000 words. Most of them could generate additional reams of analysis (see, generally, the blogosphere). The idea that "there's no there there" is just ridiculous.

Lurker: That's exactly the sort of suggestions I was looking for.

> Compare and contrast this beheading with that of Daniel Pearl's. The Daniel Pearl story didn't disappear nearly as quickly as Nick Berg's. Why?

I'm going to disqualify this one: this is asking me to write a self-referential article about the coverage of Nick Berg in the media. I'm more looking for zero-order articles about the actual event that took place.

> Discus how the killings were justified by claims of US infractions?

I would have trouble fleshing that out to 2000 words, because I don't think the killings could be justified under any logical system.

No, I take it back. I could probably put myself in the mindset of a terrorist, given enough research. It might turn out to be an interesting article about the psychology of terrorists. It might be a tough sell to get it printed, though - I think I would be lambasted for trying to rationalize the terrorist's actions.

Allright, you've convinced me. There is something interesting to say about Nick Berg.

> Analyze the claim that the Abu Ghraib abuses led directly to Nick Berg's beheading.

I couldn't flesh that out to 2000 words. I think there's no connection except as a handy talking point for terrorists. But maybe somebody who thinks there is a direct connection might be able to write such an article.

> Were both terrorist groups (Berg's & Pearl's killers) related to Al Qaeda, or acting on behalf of Al Qaeda? or not? How do the hostages taken from other nations relate to this? Japan, Russians, etc. What about the killing of the Italian citizen? Was it the same group? If not, what't the difference?

No clue. I couldn't flesh any of these out to 2000 words because I simply don't know. I don't think it's reasonable to ask that these articles be written, I think the intel just isn't there.

> Is this related at all to the contractors killed and desecrated in Falluga?

If by "related," you mean "the same guys," I have no idea.

If by "related," you mean philosophically related, I don't know. Juan Cole perceives the actions in Iraq as the acts of a number of different factions with different ideologies. I have to say, he knows a lot better than I do. I wouldn't know where to begin with an analysis like this.

Overall, I'm convinced, though, that there's something to say about Nick Berg, but it also seems to me that writing anything "smart" about him would be very hard.

> So I take it that last comment wasn't directed at me? Considering the top part of the post was, I must have missed the segue.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got two earlier posts mixed up in my mind.

Josh,

I had a long post ready, but since you've quite reaonably conceded that there is some minimal sense in what I and others have argued, I'll let it go.

The point is that how newsworthy I perceive the story to be, and the questions I find interesting, will depend on my perspective. So your test ("are there unanswered interesting questions that will alter your worldview") will just import pre-existing bias into the analysis.

Incidentally, this point has been made to great effect by feminist and ethnic academics about historical and literary analysis.

Josh Yelon (9:50pm):

Let me give you an example. I'm going to write a short paragraph about the Abu Ghraib tortures…

Excellent point, and well-done 111-word paragraph.

Here’s a 186-word paragraph for Mr. Berg. It’s still too short to mention Berg’s father’s A.N.S.W.E.R. activism and the curious Berg- Moussaoui password connection.

“It would be a further tragedy if shock induced by the graphic images of Nick Berg’s execution obscured the symbolic and practical aspects of this act. The beheading of infidels in the course of a holy war (‘jihad’) is legitimated by passages in the Quran. Thus, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi used this hostage execution to assert his Islamist credentials in a way that can inspire his hard-core Wahibbi supporters. His gruesome act also serves to intimidate both foreigners and pro-Coalition Iraqis. At the same time, the murder fits into the strategy that Zarqawi outlined in a letter to his al Qaeda superiors that was intercepted in January. In it, he discussed the urgency of derailing movements towards democracy before sovereignty returns to an Iraqi government in June. Instead of focusing on Coalition troops, Zarqawi promised to attack foreign civilians and Iraqi security forces, while promoting mayhem within the country. In that regard, Berg’s execution may be more closely related to this week’s car-bomb murder of Governing Council president Ezzidin Salim than to the 2002 beheading of reporter Daniel Perl that it was clearly designed to evoke.”

> The point is that how newsworthy I perceive the story to be, and the questions I find interesting, will depend on my perspective.

One interesting thing to do would be to go to conservative websites, and search for occurrences of the string "Nick Berg." Separate the articles into two categories: those talking about media bias, and those talking about any other aspect of the Nick Berg story.

Josh Yelon, Jujitsu master.

Hey, here's a question, off the subject. What's the right way to respond to stupidity in journalism?

Liberals used to think that the right way to respond was to sit back and relax. Our theory was that if you just wait a bit, they'll discredit themselves. It didn't work, Michael Savage is still on the air saying that Arabs are "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity," and that they're "non-humans," yet people are still listening to this guy in droves.

But despite the fact that it obviously doesn't work, I still have the nagging sense that any attempt to push somebody else off the air is censorship. I'm not saying it's illegal, I know it's legal for a private institution to do that. I just think it's bordering on immoral. I feel that healthy public discourse can only be achieved if all sides are free to express their opinions.

I think that many liberals share my hesitation to try to silence people, even when they're obvious jerks.

So what do you guys think? Is there any middle ground?

Josh,

That would be interesting. But we'd have to normalize it by comparing that figure with the figure for left media in general. Also, the fewer reporters on the story now generate less new lead & info from which to draw interesting conclusions and generate interesting questions, so the study might be distorted.

I've always heard that the answer to poor uses of speech is more speech. That's what the blogosphere provides, more speech. No need to explicity attempt to force people off the air or out of print. Just fisk them instead.

Josh,

I tend to despise censorship; I'd rather have idiots facing withering criticism, even if they remain popular, on the theory that independant thought is the best vaccine against radicalism. Censorship just cedes thinking to some bureaucrat or guardian. I wouldn't trust the most brilliant academics I've met to tie my shoelaces, let alone think for me.

My nightmare was the hardcore left and religious right teaming up in the 90s to censor pornography. /shudder My night terror is reading anything by Stanley "free speech for me but not for you, because I know what's best" Fish.

Josh;

Do you really think it's ok for a "private institution" to "push someone off the air"? Remember that the airwaves are publicly owned, and only the people, through government, have the ultimate right to judge what is appropriate to broadcast on our airwaves.

The problem as it exists today is when corporate interests and partisan political interests are in synchrony, because it leads to a subversion of the public interest.

But the media is a fickle mistress, as many conservatives are beginning to realize.

It seems to me that we've missed a larger point here. Describe what the Berg video showed--an American being decapitated by a hooded man as fanatics shout "Allahu Akbar"--and you describe an event that the public would consider awful, revolting, and enraging, but not particularly suprising, especially after Daniel Pearl. Describe what the Abu Ghraib pictures show, and the public will be genuinely surprised--and like anyone surprised, they will also doubt. They will want to see proof. That explains, to me, at least the initial disparity. As for the endless recycling of the images, that's another story...

Take care of your families,freinds and loved ones,...stop chasing gore for profit.life is too short to watch other people die for intertainment.

Good evening, You know a bond, a site diffusing the text quoted avantl' éxécution of NIck Berg, indeed I will want to study it. I thank you B.R

I have appreciated the comments and interaction between writers (posters?) regarding the implications of Abu Ghraib vs. murder/execution of American and other non-military world citizens. The American failure here is our leadership's (not just Bush) desire to maintain the so-called "high road" we take for world view as opposed to the inherent and simplistic third world approach of survival at whatever cost. We hear, see it and read about it daily (in the smatterings that the world media allows us). War is war and if we try to war by some moral rule that our enemy (of the moment) doesn't war by, then we have two options; we can either quit or war by their rules. This could easily approach a 2,000 word essay regarding the hypocracy of our choices and the choices citizens of the countries we go to "help" make regarding how they deal with American and other world civilians, but that would become political. I also agree that depending on mindset, anything can be justified... it's a matter of perception. These boil down to moral and ethical belief. So here's my opinion: If we as a country go to war, we should not expect glorious reviews from the rest of the world. We always hope that some good will come from war, but let's be real. War is death and destruction. War is about what we want versus what they want. War is about bullying and submission. If we must war then, get in, get done and move on. I pray for the wasted lives and their families, I pray for friends there and still going over, and I pray that our leadership (everyone of those a**holes) begins to listen to the people that they're supposed to represent.

Good evening, I will have wanted to know where to find on Internet the text read by the kidnappers of NIck Berg.En you remerciant.B.R

Does anyone think this is the first beheading or murder by the Iraqi extremist's? Many other country's children play with toys and some areas of middle eastern countries raise their children with firearms in hand and hate in their hearts. The United States cannot compete with the lack of compassion and anger that drives them. It is just not what we were raised with and this is what makes us less furious on the battlefield. That does not mean we will not win, it only means we are at a disadvantage on a moral level. I don't respect the United States' exploit of the Iraqi prisoner's, but we are not cutting them up in the name of Allah like our adversaries. I would bet a dollar to a dime that the prisoners (including Saddam Hussein) have better living arrangements and four square meals since they have been in custody. I just can't feel sorry for the Iraqi prisoners.

i fucken hate thse fucken iraki bastards after what happen to nick berg ill even go kill those muther fuckers im tired of their shit fuck all irakis
ps im sory to nick berg is parents n family
n friends god bless all of you guys

First off I know no one is going to read this so I might as well vent on the subject! (OH IF YOU DO READ THIS GIVE ME A HELLO) Ok back to the subject. I think that these monsters if you will, are crying out for attention ( like the kid in your 2nd grade class hat had a bad home) I just dont think these animals were hugged as children. They are all about the JIHAID...Kinda sounds like a Country Western huh JIIIIHAAAD! Anyways, they think that they are proving a point but all its doing is angering us to the point of well, lets just say extreme measures. But lets face it not ALL Iraqi's are bad, hell if it wasnt for them who would pump your gas for your car, oh and how about the 7-11 guys WE NEED FROZEN ICE BEVERAGES!! Oh, and if you cant afford a car who are the taxi drivers we adore? huh! I think we need a real nice mall in that area. Think of it here is a perfect sales pitch for you corporate asses "MALL OF ALLAH" eh eh. Ok ponder that for awhile....Awsome I bet you pondered too. It's ok no one is around and I wont tell. I think that Bush is doing a friggan awsome job and I think Kerry will be like well a nun in a strip joint alittle out of place. So the moral of this story is the next time you see an Iraqi give them a hug it can mean the world to them and maybe even save your ass.

IN CASE THERE IS ANY CONFUSION IM NOT PRO IRAQI IM JUST THE KINDA PERSON WHOM TRIES TO LOOK AT A COMIC POINT OF VIEW OF EVERYTHING. YES IM FOR PRES BUSH....AGAINST KERRY.... AND WELL
BOOM BOOM
WATCHEM FALL
F*CK THE IRAQIS
F*CK EM ALL
......SICK AND TWISTED ANIMALS
I JUST CANT FIGURE OUT HOW THEY
CAN JUST SLICE OFF THE HEAD OF
ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IN THE NAME
OF ALLAH OR HELL IN THE NAME OF
RICK JAMES FOR CHRIST SAKE. NO
MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT ITS
FRIGGAN MURDER. MURDER MURDER
MURDER. 1ST MR. DAN PEARL R.I.P.
2ND MR. NICHOLAS BERG R.I.P.
3RD MR. PAUL JOHNSON R.I.P.
THESE MEN DIED IN THE NAME OF ALLAH??
WHAT THE HELL!!!
OK THEY DIE IN THE NAME OF ALLAH
BUT THESE SON-OF-A-BITCH IRAQI
FUNDUMENTALIST ASSWIPES WILL DIE
IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
AND IF THERES TIME I GUESS BRITIAN!

SIGNED:
F*CK YOUR COUCH

DO YOU LIKE THE NAME F*CK YOUR COUCH OR SHOULD I CHANGE IT? YOU DECIDE!

SIGNED:
F*CK YOUR COUCH

Saw the video for the first time here on June 20th less than an hour ago. It was without a doubt the most disturbing, horrifying image I have viewed in my sheltered, American, Horror movie-loving life of 34 years. I am greatly overcome with the wrongness of this act. I also saw an Abu Ghraib picture shortly before that depicting the men tied together naked. Again, my first impression of that picture is that it is/was wrong. However, I was/am not "greatly overcome" as the Berg video. Neither brought out great anger in me. Both made me feel sad, which is my tendancy.
I have read pieces of the posts above. To Jim Mahon: nothing you could hear about the video is the same as watching it. I've heard about it for a long time.
Nick Berg was a construction worker, he was a man - a person - just like anyone reading this forum. I can only imagine what pain his parents are going through. Please know that no disrepect is meant by my saying - Hopefully they have already passed before this incident.
Which brings me to my next statement.
I know little about the details from either the Abu Ghraib photo, or the Nick Berg video. It is true as stated in the posts above that such details should be included within the reports of showing. As painful as it is to say, I believe we can all agree that this is not humanity's first beheading. Wrongness exudes from such acts and yet even our own ancestors have participated in such grisly action, Be you of any race, creed or nationality. As far as it goes about showing the Abu Ghraib more freely on the media, can you just imagine the massive national Hatred that would be incited by the general public of the U.S.A by viewing this video on something as commonplace as a television? Hate crime against islamic peoples would skyrocket is my prediction. It is in my opinion that great anger only leads to greater wars and horrors such as these. I feel that to react to either of these aspects with rage is not that answer. Anger only breeds more anger Must continue this later.

this is a sad time...please observe these images with some sense of humanity, and understand that this is an actual human being...this is the year 2004...religion and politics take a back seat to this blatant atrocity...i send unconditional love to everyone involved with this, in the hope that anything can be saved from this sickness...god bless you all'''pray he still is listening....

I have had alot of questions on where to see the videos of the beheadings and other such postings. I hesitate a little posting this site but I feel it will be ok with fair warning! This is a very graphic site and you should only use this link if you do not have a weak stomach. My heart goes out to the families of the people who have to suffer through the media and exposure of the video's after losing their loved ones. PLEASE PROCEED WITH CAUTION. THE VIDEOS ARE GRAPHIC AND VIOLENT! http://www.ogrish.com/

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES!

I just want to state I am in no way affiliated with the website that posts these videos and do not condone them at all!!

I just want to say, I have never seen the video till this day. My prays to the Berg family,my God bless each and everyone of you. I can not imagine the pain everyone feel. Just remember Nick is in a special place right now smiling at you. Don't worry you'll see him again. Keep looking to God and he will bless you with a peace of mind. In the end they will be judged,and will not prevail.
All My Love and Prays.

Jeff-fro Dawg

You guys are totaly stupid.

I would like to apologize yo your family i just watched the video and i feel like a horrible person for seeing it. i saw it a couple of hours and im still extremely terrified im a wreck im crying as im writing to you. it was the most horrific thing ive ever seen. i think its totally wrong that is being broadcasted its wrong in every way. I didnt even know your couragouse son and im so disturbed and emotional right now i cant even discribe how im feeling im so upset i cant even imagine the heartache that you have felt and im sure continue to feel. my heart is crushed right now. and even more scared and upset because my little brother is on his over right now adn woory everyday and i pray that god keeps him safe as well as all the other brave soldiers out there just like son was. and for that couragessness your son will never be forgotten. justice will be served i believe that with all my hearts those monsters that comitted that evil act on your son will have there judgement day and they will pay they will suffer. i will keep your family in my prayers.maybe you could pray for my brother JP. im gonna go i need to gather my thoughts, know that god will see to it that your family as well as your son gets the justice and the respect the you all deserve glod bless