NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading the Yahoo! news and this headline (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070318194811)attracted my attention, "U.S. troop deaths show Sunni resilience" The article went on to describe how Sunni insurgents were able to remain resilient and continue killing Americans, even after the five week crackdown in the capital.

That made me wonder who's side the journalist was on? Wouldn't it be even more proper to say that "Sunni insurgent deaths show American resilience? After all, we have been a fairly easy target for 4 years now, yet we can still kill or arrest the occasional insurgent. Strange thing, though, no matter how many Sunni insurgents we kill, those never get the headlines. It's almost as if the media prefers having American soldiers killed.

I'm sure the wording of the headline was inadvertent. Clearly, an American reporter would only side with the enemy, unthinkingly.

I was reading the Yahoo! news and this headline (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070318194811)attracted my attention, "U.S. troop deaths show Sunni resilience" The article went on to describe how Sunni insurgents were able to remain resilient and continue killing Americans, even after the five week crackdown in the capital.

That made me wonder who's side the journalist was on? Wouldn't it be even more proper to say that "Sunni insurgent deaths show American resilience? After all, we have been a fairly easy target for 4 years now, yet we can still kill or arrest the occasional insurgent. Strange thing, though, no matter how many Sunni insurgents we kill, those never get the headlines. It's almost as if the media prefers having American soldiers killed.

I'm sure the wording of the headline was inadvertent. Clearly, an American reporter would only side with the enemy, unthinkingly.
For starters, reporters rarely write their own headlines. Editors generally do that job. But secondly, how does saying an enemy is resilient become preference for that side? I think you're reading bias in where none exists.

The Sunni insurgents are the defenders, this is a fact. They may be horrible people and everything, but they are in the defensive position.

The Americans (and co) are the attackers, this is also a fact. They might be brilliant people (or horrible, as I'm sure there's plenty of horror to go around), but they are in the offensive position.

The Americans needn't show resilience, because they're far superior, combat-wise, and they have the resources to stay for as long as they want (at the expense of a lot of domestic stuff, but they do have the resources).

The Sunni need to show resilience, because they do not have the resources or possibly even the manpower to keep up a mounted resistance for all eternity, without being tough and plowing on even in the face of defeat.

Naturally, it could be turned around, but you tell me: Which side is being favoured? If you said the American troops were being resilient, you'd have to assume that they didn't actually have the resources to do what they were doing, but they're doing it anyway. The Sunni, however, don't have the resources and they are doing what they want to do.

The Americans have the resources, but aren't doing what they want to do.

It's not supportive either way, as it's actually quite objective.

For starters, reporters rarely write their own headlines. Editors generally do that job. But secondly, how does saying an enemy is resilient become preference for that side? I think you're reading bias in where none exists.
Clearly the headline comes from the first sentence in the article. I'm sure you've read it, but for the others, the article leads off:

Sunni insurgents, resilient despite the five-week security crackdown in the capital, killed at least six more U.S. troops over the weekend.


The bias is one of those subtle things. People are too smart to write something like "Yay for Sunnis!", so they do the next best thing. Can you imagine seeing the headline I proposed. The idea that someone might convey the quality of resilience onto American troops is a nice one, but not one I expect to see in print. The fact that we see Sunni insurgents referred to as resilient for killing Americans, yet rarely see any stories about Americans killing insurgents is bias. Bias by omission, maybe, but bias all the same.

I agree with Seathornia. The "resilience" part is a matter of fact statement rather than some kind of percieved bias towards the Sunni's.

No, the simpler explanation is that news sells.

No one in the US gives a shit for how many brown people die, so who cares about how many died.

What viewers want to know and moan over is how many US soldiers died - after all, they are US soldiers, and maybe someone watching can find out their loved one died on CNN instead of being notified.

No,No one in the US gives a shit for how many brown people die, so who cares about how many died.



Well I don't know about you but...

Wouldn't it be even more proper to say that "Sunni insurgent deaths show American resilience?

no

this has been another edition of "simple answers to stupid questions"

I'm sure the wording of the headline was inadvertent. Clearly, an American reporter would only side with the enemy, unthinkingly.

Well, duh. The Black Suits make sure of that one.

Well I don't know about you but...

You're obviously in a minority, according to the marketing people.