Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News

Every news service has to select which facts it publishes. It's not, I think, a cover-up, or some kinda plot.

Partly, it's the fact that there isn't room in any newspaper, or enough patience among readers, to include every detail that reporters and researchers dug up. Also, I think, it's the fact that reporters and editors are people. They have a particular point of view, and have working assumptions about what their readers are interested in.

NATO, America, German Officers, Bombed Fuel Trucks

Real events are seldom all that simple.

"British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.

"Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.

"Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.

"The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Farrell was unhurt...."
(FOXNews) [emphasis mine]

That FOXNews story, attributed to the AP, is one of the few that emphasized that a soldier died in the process of freeing the reporter.

Sky News puts more emphasis on the death of a British commando - understandably, since it's a British publication.

Individuals Count: So Does the Big Picture

What happened in Kunduz, in my view, is not just about a British commando dying in an effort to rescue an American journalist; or the Munadi family's loss; or German officers ordering American pilots to bomb hijacked fuel trucks; or NATO killing innocent(?) civilians who were pilfering fuel. All of that is involved, and important - particularly to the people directly involved.

But the Taliban gives every indication of having an active interest in regaining control of Afghanistan. Understandably, since the country has become downright 'un-Islamic' by the Taliban's peculiar standards since they were pried out a few years ago.

Afghanistan's current government doesn't particularly want the Taliban back in power. I don't think Afghan's current leaders are so much 'pro-western' as they are aware that it isn't the eighth century any more.

NATO, and its member countries, have an interest in what happens to Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, that country served as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. I think European leaders have twigged that Islamic crazies are a real problem - more so when they've got the support of at least one national government.

Headlines, Story and Background

I've made the point before, that news needs to be studied, not just read.

Headline

Headlines pique your interest because they're designed to do just that.

Story

The story will tell you what an editor decided to select from information and impressions that a reporter collected. Even if it's more than one editor and several reporters, the principle is the same: you're reading a digest of an event, from a more-or-less limited point of view.

Background

The best news stories give some background, showing how events fit into what's happened before, and the assumptions and history of the people involved. I think it's a good idea for a reader to do a little checking, if for no other reason than to verify that the news service got their facts straight.

Happily, with the information technology we've got available these days it's fairly easy to do research. As I said earlier this year:

"...It's complex, and confusing. Anyone who tries to pay attention finds contradictory views, backed by various combinations of facts and wishful thinking.

"I love it...."
(January 30, 2009)

Related posts:

• "NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress"
  (September 5, 2009)
• "NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice"
  (September 4, 2009)
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• " 'America Tortured Prisoners' - Here We Go Again"
  (August 25, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "All Those 'Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!' "
  (January 4, 2009)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "The Effect of Information Technology and Media Preoocupation with Urban Events on the Relative Sophistication of Urban and Rural Populations"
  (April 13, 2008)

In the news:

• "Times Reporter Is Freed in Afghan Raid That Kills Aide"
  The New York Times (September 9, 2009)
• "NYT Reporter Freed; Colleague Killed in Afghanistan (Update2)"
  Bloomberg (September 9, 2009)
• "New York Times: Commandos free Times reporter"
  The Associated Press (September 9, 2009)
• "Two Die in Afghan Raid to Free Seized Reporter"
  FoxNEWS (an AP story, but not quite the same as the one above) (Septmeber 9, 2009)
• "British Soldier Killed In Reporter's Rescue"
  Sky News (September 9, 2009)