This is from Salon's War Room. It's an age-old question about news coverage. Why does a story about a few dead here merit more coverage than a story about a lot more dead over there? In this case, the criticism is not that the mine disaster is being covered too much. It's that the deaths in Iraq are not being covered enough.
Of course the reason for that (not a good reason, but a reason) is because dead Americans in Iraq have become common. Death in a coal mine is new. During the Clinton years, the military routinely attacked Iraqi air-defense units that painted our planes patrolling the no-fly zones and it got to the point that it only merited a paragraph in a column of news briefs.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/06/mine_iraq/index.htmlWest Virginia and that other place where Americans have died
When we turned on the television this morning, we saw another round of stories about the Sago mine disaster. It's a big, gripping news story, and we can understand why the networks have thrown so many resources at it.
That said, we couldn't help noticing something this morning. Twelve miners were killed in West Virginia this week. Eleven U.S. troops were killed in Iraq Thursday. Will we see long TV interviews with each and every one of the troops' family members? Live press conferences in which the officials responsible are grilled for answers? Touching reports on their last letters home? Updates from doctors reporting on the condition of soldiers who managed to survive?
We all know who Randal McCloy is. Can anyone name a soldier who was injured in Iraq this week?
We don't mean to take anything away from the importance of what happened in West Virginia. Still, we think it's fair to ask: If the media started covering the deaths of Americans in Iraq like it covered the deaths of Americans in West Virginia, how much longer would the public tolerate the president's war?