Last Monday’s front-page headline about the civilian casualties in Afghanistan brought complaints from readers who don’t want the Union-Tribune to print news they see as propaganda for the enemy. At least two readers accused the newspaper of sedition.
It wasn’t just the headline, “U.S. strikes kill 13 Afghan civilians” that angered scores of readers. What also bothered many who called or e-mailed was that there was no story on the front page about the 16 Christians in Pakistan who were gunned down while at a church service.
There’s no question the headline failed to put the Afghan civilian casualties into perspective. And, yes, the story about the massacre of Pakistani Christians should have been on the front page instead of Page A-10. The paper should have done better by its readers.
“The purpose of the (Afghanistan) story, and thus its prominence on the front page, was to give a roundup of the day’s significant military developments,” said R.B. Brenner, the senior editor who was on duty.
“Those developments were multifaceted. There was the angle of it being the second straight day that American missiles hit residential areas. There also were the reports of improved coordination between U.S. airstrikes and the Northern Alliance. And there was the significance of Sen. John McCain’s call for large numbers of ground troops.
“What I regret, in hindsight, is that the story we used focused too heavily on the 13 civilians killed. As a result, that angle was picked by the headline writer. Both the story’s opening and the headline needed to better reflect the myriad developments.”
The four-column headline at the top of the page reduced developments to a numbers game. That was unfortunate.
“Thirteen civilians?” wrote one reader. “What about the memorial service for the 5,000 killed at the World Trade Center? What about the continued presence of anthrax in the nation’s mail rooms? What about our troops being at risk every day in Afghanistan?”
While all those stories shared the front page, some readers were so upset they did not see them or chose to ignore them. Many said the paper should focus on the Sept. 11 victims rather than civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Do they think that the Union-Tribune editors have decided the newspaper should report on one and not the other? In fact, the centerpiece article on the front page the same day as the civilian casualty story was about a memorial service in New York for the victims of the World Trade Center. With it, was a photograph of a mourner. It dominated the page and showed a woman holding up photos of a victim. “Debbie, We love you” was printed on one.
Some readers also were angry about a Page 2 story about Afghan refugees. The headline with the Associated Press story said: “Airstrikes heighten suffering at Kabul Children’s Hospital.”
Part of the anger is because some people seem to think terrorists are synonymous with Afghanistan, and they consider the Afghan civilian casualties the same as casualties of “the enemy.” Of course, the president and the military have tried to make it clear that the Taliban and the terrorists they protect are the enemy, not the Afghan civilians who oppose the Taliban and are fleeing for their lives.
Others, however, say of course they know refugees are not the enemy. Civilian deaths, they point out, are a fact of war, and we’d better get used to it. Not only that, they say they don’t want to hear about them.
Last Monday’s effort was wanting, and some of the criticism was justified. No one disputes that the newspaper has a duty to report responsibly. When it appears balance is lacking, the public trust is at stake.
For some, however, there is an even deeper issue. The anger exhibited by the callers and letter-writers last week made it apparent some Americans are so frightened they look upon the news media as a threat. When they read information they don’t like, they question the newspaper’s patriotism. They see criticism as un-American.
It is even more chilling that some believe it is in the interest of the nation for the news media to be silenced. Although they would be sacrificing their own right to free speech, as far as they are concerned, not one word should be printed that might imply criticism of the government and the military. They are willing to let the government decide what information should be shared with its citizens.
Already, the news media have run into roadblocks in getting information from the government. That is not likely to get any better as the fight against terrorism progresses. But isn’t the battle that’s under way intended to preserve the freedoms we Americans cherish? Isn’t freedom of speech among them? Wouldn’t it be the same as giving in to terrorists if we surrender it?
