Greyhawk points us to a relatively long and detailed post by Patterico, which picks apart a 13 November article from the LA Times alledging that a US airstrike in the Anbar capital of Ramadi “pulverized” 15 houses and killed 30+ people:
BAGHDAD ‚Äî A U.S. airstrike in the restive town of Ramadi killed at least 30 people, including women and children, witnesses said Tuesday…
A Times correspondent in Ramadi said at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment and families could be seen digging through the ruins with shovels and bare hands. Other families attempted to leave Ramadi on foot or gathered at the city hospital, where a passionate crowd called out “Allahu akbar!” or God is great, in unison.
Hmm. Doesn’t sound like the local chapter of the Ramadi Secularists Union, but then again, that doesn’t in itself mean that the Times story is wrong. But read on: Patterico uses what resources are available to him to determine that it’s very likely that the “Times correspondent” quoted is in fact a stringer for the anti-democratic resistance, which means that the Times appears to be unblinkingly shilling propaganda for our enemies. Coalition sources agree that tank fires were used to stop an IED cell but deny using air power on 13 or 14 November, and Patterico’s extensive sources indicate that all of the 30+ killed in the action were military-aged males.
For the full story, read Patterico’s post and Greyhawk’s comments. From my own perspective, and as I pointed out over at Milblogs, an airstrike capable of “pulverizing” 15 houses would be a pretty large force package – it’d be hard to hide:
There’s no way to “pulverize” 15 structures with one conventional weapon, or even with one aircraft attacking, unless we’re doing urban CAS now with carpet bombing B-52′s or B-1′s, which I don’t believe to be true.
In that environment the bias is towards smaller weapons to reduce the collateral damage risks, and each target is scrutinized to ensure that the effects on surrounding non-targets are minimized.
“Pulverized” is a rather non-specific term, but I’ll take it to mean a target structure that is 80-100% destroyed since that’s the image it evokes. Assuming from a best case in terms of desired weapons effects that the target building was demolished and from the worst case that a nearby non-target was 50% reduced through CD, you’re still talking an airstrike of 21 weapons – 7 to 8 or so against principal targets and another 14 or so which somehow combined to “pulverize” the non-targets.
That’s at least a ten-plane strike for TACAIR – hard to plausibly deny from the military perspective.
The point is not that the Times is happily swallowing and uncritically regurgitating terrorist propaganda. It’s that, if they were doing so, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between that and what they wrote on 13 November. You’d think if a guy like Patterico, who after all has a full-time job which doesn’t involve source-checking important stories can tease out so many inconsistencies, then the paid reporters at the Times ought to be able to do so while on the clock.
You’d think.
Gosh, I’m simply amazed that the main stream media would “exagerate” a military event to the detriment of the Armed Forces…NOT.
When I found the milblogs, I also found something else: a means to get meaningful answers about what’s going on, and a good reason to cancel my subscription to “Proceedings”. Both actions were the direct result of getting more truth from the milblogs than either the biased media or the strangled public Navy voice. I haven’t looked back since, and I’ll continue to rely on Lex, the CDR, and B5 for all my needs.
When I read these types of things I always wonder why… Why does the Times want to portray the soldiers of their own country as “pulverizing” non military targets?
Then I have the “then what ” moment. Once the Times helps in bringing the U.S. out of the region in defeat, then what?
I monitor blogs from Syria, U.A.E., Egypt, etc. Their “then what” scenario is pretty uniform; mass slaughter, increased repression and religious idiocy.
Is that the “then what” that the Times is looking for? If so, why?
Must we continue to chalk it up to their blind ideology that never looks at the “then what” scenario?
Barb,
I’m starting to think that though blind ideology is involved, a majority (or at least plurality) of it is a mixtuer of laziness, cowardice and incompetence.
Could a portion of it be the Vietnam scenario? In that, I mean could they want us to loose?
For many journalists during the Vietnam war, bringing down the war was a goal. Why should it have changed now? I will say this though, if that’s their goal then they’re a pretty sad lot of idiots.
Jim C
Babs,
I think you have identified the problem precisely.
Los Angeles is essentially a one newspaper town; and what little competition the Times has is merely a mosquito bite to that media giant. Simply put, there is no media source to question the Times’ view of the world, or to hold it to higher standards.
The Times is little more than a daily 1.5 lb issue of liberal viewpoints, skewed reporting and advertising. Facts mean little, and retractions are all but unknown.
The news is not all bad however; the Times has suffered drastic losses in circulation in recent years; resulting in significant reduction in staff.
Several more moderate factions have offered to buy the paper, but to date the owners in Chicago have resisted those offers.
All that being said, the Times makes a damn fine liner for the bottom of your bird cage.
L.A. Times reprinting enemy propaganda?…
LA Times: Newspaper Or Propaganda Repeater?Ed Morrissey Patterico has a must-read post today on how the Los Angeles Times reports on Iraq. Earlier this month, the LAT reported that 30 Iraqi civilians died from an airstrike conducted by US forces…
“All that being said, the Times makes a damn fine liner for the bottom of your bird cage.”
But think what would happen were your feathered pet learn to read? Constipation?
At what point in this “supporting our enemies” does this have to go to before there are charges laid against the newpaper? Is there no limit to the damage that these swine do?
Pat
I’m in Ramadi. I was downtown that night. There was no airstrike.
CENTAF in its 15 Nov daily summary says there was an airstrike in the Ramadi zone and the force package was large:
“In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets.?
CENTAF in its 15 Nov daily summary says there was an airstrike in the Ramadi zone and the force package was large:
“In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets.”