Salon’s War Room [1] presents Fox’s coverage as a case of especially shoddy journalism regarding Iran’s alleged provision of arms to forces hostile to the US in Iraq:
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the administration is right on two key points: that Iranian arms are indeed flowing into Iraq and that it’s happening with the approval of the Iranian government. Even if that’s true, there’s still a big logical hole in the reasoning of much of the press’s reporting on the issue. That’s especially true of this article, beginning in just the first sentence: “The White House stuck to its guns Monday, insisting it had clear evidence that Tehran approved the shipment of weapons — including deadly bomb-making materials — to Shiite militants for use against U.S. forces in Iraq.”
What’s the problem there? Well, simply that weapons supplied by Iran to Shiite militias would be far more likely to be used in sectarian violence against Sunnis than against U.S. troops. As Salon contributor Juan Cole has already pointed out on his blog, the majority — by far — of U.S. deaths in Iraq are caused by Sunnis, not Shiites. Beyond that, the weapons allegedly supplied by Iran are flowing to U.S. allies in Iraq.
Here’s another problem with the current Iran/Iraq coverage. Why are so many media outlets letting the White House frame the allegedly inevitable consequences? Why are we so happy to assume, along with the White House, that IF the Iranians are providing arms to our enemies, that the only logical response would be war against Iran? As though there are no other options . . .
And who is providing all of those handguns that are killing so many Americans in American cities? Big American corporations, you say? If providing arms that kill Americans justifies war, isn’t it time for the U.S. to declare war on Smith & Wesson?
Print this post [2]
[3]