Media massacres and war crimes

Gateway Pundit:

The Western news giants are keeping the public up on the latest "massacre" news from Haditha:

The Washington Post on Saturday, May 27, 2006:

In Haditha, Memories of a Massacre

CNN, May 29, 2006:

Was Haditha massacre covered up?

The BBC, May 30, 2006:

Iraq to probe US massacre claims

But, when the killing is done by "insurgents", here are the mainstream media headlines:

CNN, Monday, February 28, 2005, on the deadliest single insurgent attack of war:

Iraq suicide bomb kills at least 125

The BBC, February 28, 2005,... No blame here:

Iraq car bombing causes carnage

The New York Times, May 4, 2005, on a suicide bombing that killed 60:

Bomber Posing as Iraqi Police Recruit Kills at Least 60

Get the picture?

...

There is more on the media double standard. The enemy in Iraq's primary target has been non combatants for over a year. This is because they know they will lose if they attempt to take on the US or Iraqi troops and because they know the media will blame the US for not stopping their mass murder. The media standard for war reporting is that the fact of an attack is more important than the results of an attack. Attacks on civilians by the enemy are done purely for the public relations benefit given by the media. If they were not reported, they probably would not happen since they have no effect on the correlation of forces. For example if a division of US troops were killed or put out of action that would have an effect on the US war effort regardless of whether it was reported. But the deliberate killing of non combatants does nothing to effect the use of US forces in the war with the enemy in the battlespace. It's only effect is that it gives those who want to lose the war back in the states an excuse to lose.