Media Watch

There was an article in today's Courant about the trial of Saddam Hussein for a military operation that doubled as an ethnic cleansing of Kurds. The article discussed the operation in brief, talked about the courtroom, and such. What it did not mention in its history, or even hint at, was that the United States granted at least implicit approval of the operation, in which 80,000-150,000 Kurds were killed through bombardment, execution, and even chemical attacks. Iraq was a client of the United States in its war against Iran (from 1980-1988) until its invasion of Kuwait. The operation took place in late 1987, which puts it well within the borders of US support for Iraq. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld paid a visit to Saddam Hussein, representing the American government, after the operation. None of this is either mentioned or even alluded to in the article.

Secondly, the article uses a report from Human Rights Watch for the entire presentation on the event, and the information is treated as solid, undeniable evidence. This very well may be, and I do not question it. My point is, however, that when HRW puts out a report on, say, the Guantanamo prison camp or Iraqi civilian casualties in the Iraq War, or anything else involving the United States, the information is ignored by the press as being "unreliable." The media's double standard for information is what I take issue with.