by Lance Thompson

Media journalists talk about violence as if it were an unfortunate natural phenomenon, an indifferent ill wind that afflicts all, like a hurricane or tornado.  With suitable looks of concern, they report “continued violence in Gaza” or “escalating violence in Baghdad” or “renewed violence in Afghanistan” without differentiating between aggressor and defender, innocent victims and guilty perpetrators, reign of terror and rule of law. When it comes to violence, the media are even-handed to a fault.
 
Since the media clearly rely upon graphic images of violence to increase viewership, it’s unfortunate they don’t have the same approach to violence as they do the other media staple, sports.  Why don’t we see military experts like General Petraeus, walking viewers through strategy and tactics with his screenwriter, in the manner of John Madden?   “Here’s the weak spot in the Hamas defense.  This is where the Israelis faked left, then cut right through the line and scored against a tough terrorist line.”

In my town, most of the population enthusiastically support the local Boise State University Broncos.  The local media are no different, covering the game and the players with undisguised favoritism.  Cities with major league ball clubs exhibit the same home-team preferences.  My question is, why don’t American media outlets show the same support for our home team–the American military?   Why doesn’t the Los Angeles Times that rejoices in a playoff victory by the Lakers  also celebrate the battlefield victories of our soldiers or sailors?   When was the last time you saw a banner headline in your local paper proclaiming, MARINES TROUNCE AL QAEDA?  Or NAVY BLASTS PIRATES?

If sports reporters covered their beat like their pals in the world news departments, we’d be treated to headlines like this: “Violence Continues in Pro Boxing.  Casualties Mount in Playoff Race.  Cowboys and Steelers Reject Mediation, Vow to Fight On.”  Instead of highlights of game-winning plays, we’d be treated to close-up coverage of team doctors taping ankles, players carried off the field with dislocated shoulders, and demonstrators protesting the abuse of animals at the Kentucky Derby.    When reporting sports events, media personalities can be as outspoken and openly supportive of favorite teams as any rabid fan.  But when it comes to the truly world-changing events happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and elsewhere, all they can manage is a grim and unrelentingly neutral reporting of casualties.  Just as the diplomats at the United Nations and governments around the world  derive satisfaction by “condemning the violence on both sides,” the news media implicitly denounces violence as the ill, rather than the result of conflicts between forces of very different moral character.

No conflict in history has been waged between two equally moral combatants.  Sometimes those engaged have some principles in common, sometimes they have nothing in common.  But in every case, there is one side that holds the moral high ground, even if only comparatively so.  Why does the media refuse to recognize this fundamental distinction that gives meaning to the violence they so solemnly report?

The reason, of course, is that the media already has taken sides, and it is always the side that opposes the American military.  By treating violence as an affliction, by reporting on armed conflicts with strict moral equivalency, the media place the United States on par with its enemies.  In every case, the media places the defenders of freedom on par with the forces of oppression.  There is no objectivity in such a view.  By elevating the enemy to our level, they are taking his side.  For the news media, the home town team is whoever takes the field against us and our allies.

If you get your news from any other network than FoxNews, you’re hearing about the game from the other side’s press.  If we win a battle, you’ll hear about the costs to our troops, the civilian casualties, the mistakes we made.  If the other side wins, you’ll hear about the hopelessness of our cause, the resilience of the enemy, and, again, the mistakes we made.  What you will not get is an objective view of the contest.

So next time you hear a report on violent conflict somewhere in the world, you might ask yourself if the news reader is giving you the home town spin, or if he really knows the score.