In Fajulla recently, four Americans were burned to death. Their bodies (which were by this time charred beyond recognition) were dragged through the street and hung from a local bridge to cheers and dancing from a crowd of townspeople. <a href="http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/04/02/405107.html" title="Gruesome images jolt Americans: For many, the display of dead Americans, who had been brutally killed, reminded them of Somalia in 1993." source="Canoe">Gruesome images jolt Americans</a> talks about how torn the media was in deciding whether to air the gruesome footage. <iq>White House press secretary Scott McClellan called for "responsible" media coverage of the murders Wednesday of four security contractors</iq>. What Scott means by responsible is that the media should report exactly what they've been told to by him. (and they don't disappoint!) This is the same administration and press that had no trouble showing pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussein when they were killed in a massive firefight. Instead of thumbnails, here are links to a picture of <a href="{att_link}13_23_200_uday.jpg">Uday's</a> post-mortem picture and a picture of <a href="{att_link}fallujah_31mar04-afp1.jpg">burned body</a> in Falluja. The pictures are pretty disturbing, so you don't have to see them if you don't want to. I personally can't see where one is more gruesome than the other. There are a few open questions about the coverage of this incident and why we're even hearing about it: <ul> Why is this so much worse than when a dozen soldiers are killed at once in grenade attacks? Because people celebrated in public? Why is this worse than when whole neighborhoods in Baghdad were cluster-bombed out of existence and dozens of <i>actual</i> civilians died? Why were media outlets haranguing the US government for photos of Uday and Qusay but hesitant to show the pictures of Falluja? Why did the administration allow this particular killing to be covered? Was this reticence all just part of the show? </ul> The reporting surrounding this story smacks of the hypocrisy and double-standards we've become familiar with. It is also quite blatantly much more manipulative in that the administration seems to have sensed an opportunity. Until now, the administration has forbidden any media coverage of soldier deaths, even going so far as to forbid filming of bodies arriving from Iraq or funerals at Arlington. All of a sudden, these gruesome images are freely released and coverage is encouraged. Why? Because they can alienate the Iraqi by showing how he celebrates when an American dies. Remember how often we saw that same village of Palestinians celebrating when the twin towers were destroyed? Because they think we're all just simple creatures and will be clamoring for revenge instead of demanding we pull out. They think we'll see Iraqis celebrating the deaths of their occupiers and believe that they are all ignorant savages who deserve to die. That's also why you keep hearing that the four victims were <iq>security contrators</iq> or <iq>defense department employees</iq> or worse, just <iq>civilians</iq>. If you listen to the report (and I watched it on CNN International), they all had DOD ids, were armed and employed by the DOD from a private security company. Sounds pretty much like the fucking CIA to me. Seriously, what are four "civilians" doing driving a heavily armed jeep through the most anti-American town in Iraq? Quantity surveying? But the media keeps hammering on that word because they know it's the lever that will engender support for the administration, its occupation of Iraq and the upcoming US elections. Don't be surprised if these images show up in a campaign commercial. A comment at <a href="http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/04/02/08053792;cmt=142" source="Plastic">Where Do We Go From Here? The Falluja Killings</a> derides the media for acting <iq>...as if they had been engineers, or bureaucrats, or something other than mercenaries. Mercenaries, by definition, are soldiers for hire. These guys were legitimate military targets, NOT civilians.</iq> Predictably, our vast and varied political apparatus in the States has rallied to the cause and is reacting exactly as the White House wants and needs. John Kerry, who can't risk a mis-step, will agree Bush right back into the White House with a bland <iq>United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail</iq>, whereas John McCain said <iq>We cannot afford to lose this ... We cannot leave and we cannot fail.</iq> That little sound-bite might just as well have been written by Karl Rove himself. In the article, McCain was described as <iq>a maverick who has opposed Bush's handling of the conflict</iq>, making sure you've subconsciously absorbed that it takes a maverick to disagree with the President's handling of <i>anything</i>. Damn that liberal media! So that's why you've heard so much about these killings; the administration sees an advantage and is pressing it. The docile press simply repeats what the White House says. The people react to the information they're given and demand revenge. The US stays in Iraq and Bush stays in the White House. Don't let it be that easy.