When are ten Israeli soldiers just "10 Israelis" or "10 People" ?
The answer is when they were killed by a Hezbollah rocket that landed in an infantry staging area instead of setting some field on fire, knocking a hole in a building, or subjecting one or two excruciatingly unlucky civilians to injury or death.
Such is the nature of the press coverage in U.S. media of the "As Yet Un-Named War" in it's 26th day. Made doubly worse by the fact that the very same news organisations routinely report those killed by IAF airstrikes in Southern Lebanon as "civilians". In such a "war" as this, it is impossible to know whether they were actually "civilians" or not, often even far after the fact.
What is so wrong with the term "people"? It is more accurate and just as communicative.
But such is not the case when a casualty is wearing a uniform. In a "war" comprised mostly of indiscriminate killing over vast distances with a very low percentage of actual combat taking place between uniformed cadres, a soldier is a soldier first and a person second.
Does the U.S. media believe that to report on a Hezbollah rocket killing ten Israeli "soldiers", instead of "people", would tacitly and subliminally lend a measure of legitimacy to the "terrorists" fighting the IDF? Or is it just ratings? Perhaps it is simply laziness, as "soldiers" requires one to type two more letters than does "people"?
Ever the cynic, I suspect the worst. A conscious effort on the part of the corporations who control most of the channels by which the American electorate gets the news they use to determine their opinions and votes, to "stick to the script" for agit-props' sake, and to take advantage of each and every opportunity to reinforce it while simultaneously filtering out and suppressing anything which does not conform to the agreed upon "message".
While it is possible to think that the media does such things sub-consciously, as they are subserviant to and reliant upon the state for their sustenance, I believe there is much more to it than that. And it is in these times that one is thankful for the proliferation of non-corporate controlled mediums, for they so powerfully reveal the greatest threat to states and the corporations that rule them, which is: INFORMATION.
Thomas Jefferson's admonitions on a free press and an informed electorate being vital to democracy and good self-government are also true in reverse. For most assuredly an un-free press is necessary to create a mis-informed electorate that will enable, perpetuate, and most importantly, pose no threat to, a corrupt, corporate-controlled government.
And in that sense we are all "soldiers" (enemy combatants ?) now even as we read the headlines in the morning paper or on the Internet. So remember it is ultimately up to you to educate yourself in the "war" over Information.
Remember Socrates'... "Question Everything"
And Sir Thomas More's... "Silence equals Consent"
stephenhsmith
6Aug2006
