2001 - Iraq

Peter Wirth

Progressive main stream news coverage might seem like an oxymoron but it is quite possible. Many activists make an assumption based on lack of news coverage on an issue that there is a ‘embargo’ on certain issues. This mind set discourages us from making press work a priority.

Philip Lee

At the beginning of the year 2000, countries throughout the world were celebrating the New Millennium. Yet the people of Iraq had little to celebrate. For two decades they had suffered the consequences of seemingly endless conflict (war with Iran 1980-88, the Gulf War of 1990-91, followed by almost ten years of sanctions and ‘unofficial’ bombing). A whole generation has known nothing but violence. By the beginning of 2001, the assault on Iraq had lasted longer than the US invasion of Vietnam and the effect has been devastating:

Rania Masri

Let us assume that we were to utilise the same presentational format for all news that the National Public Radio (or, more accurately, the National Pentagon Radio) utilises in its presentation on Iraq. Utilising the ‘Iraq’ format, how would we present a report on, say, tobacco and its impact on human health? On one side, we have the US Surgeon General, an extensive list of medical doctors, scientists, and researchers, and hundreds of thousands of cancer victims - all presenting a solid case that nicotine causes cancer. On the other side, we have the tobacco lobbyists, and representatives from RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris. Whom would we interview -- the scientists or the lobbyists?

Carlos A. Valle

Some months after the Rwandan genocide, during a visit to that country, I had the opportunity to ask some church leaders why it took so much time for the churches to react to what was happening in Rwanda. Their candid answer was, ‘It was not in the media’.