I'm so glad you're back to blogging!

Hey, thanks.

I was really surprised by your reaction to Express' front page today. I don't see how you saw it as celebratory. It struck me as a print equivalent to how every media outlet in the world was marking this as a sad milestone. Please explain.

Well. Let's see. Huge block type, large graphic. The term "celebratory" isn't a literal reference to editors dancing around and skipping with glee, rather enthusiastically seizing upon an arbitrary round number - that is historically low - to push a narrative.

If you would have told me prior to the invasion itself that 2,000 troops would die in 2.5 years of war, precipitated by an invasion of a country the size of Iraq, I would have found your estimate remarkably low.

And did I mention, PUBLISHING IT IN HUGE BLOCK TYPE WITH A DRAMATIC, CONNOTIVE VISUAL?

As for it being the "print equivalent to how every media outlet in the world was marking this as a sad milestone," I think that you are incorrect; I'm staring at the front page of USA Today right now, and while it reports on the milestone, it has nowhere near the emphasis or dramatic representation (with concomitant connotations) that the WaPo Express cover does.

Yes, I'm sure that many, many other outlets have reached for similarly dramatic presentations.

And by the way - "every media outlet in the world ... marking this as a sad milestone" doesn't please me too much either. It's non-contextual bullshit, a bitter pill when taken with the rest of their woefully non-contextual coverage.

Thanks. Seriously. I didn't see it that way at all, so it's fascinating to me to see how people read so much (and so differently) into how news is presented. Yes, it's an arbitrary number, but it's human nature to use big round numbers as a cause for reflection -- why the year 2000 and not the year 1987, for example? I don't see why choosing 2,000 as a good time to assess the status of the war implies any bias or judgment or anything other than a response to the natural human attraction to big, milestone numbers. For better or worse, people pay attention to this sort of number, and why not use it as a time to reflect broadly -- whether to say, as you do, that hell, 2,000 is LOW or to say, "Has it been worth 2,000?" Unfortunate as it may be, it's tough to catalyze that kind of discussion around number 1,089 or 2,013. But it's a discussion that's worth having.

john -

as someone who is also interested in "how people read so much (and so differently) into how news is presented," as well as one that thinks that individuals (including my natural allies) overreact by yelling that too many news angles are biased ...

... I find your "I don't see why choosing 2,000 as a good time to assess the status of the war implies any bias or judgment or anything other than a response to the natural human attraction to big, milestone numbers" argument too generic.

Why? For reasons specified elsewhere in the post.

Because contextually, why is 2,000 viewed as a "big, milestone number" in the first place?

Because, contextually, there is less reporting on positive human interest stories, overall progress and the context of deaths than a monomaniacal focus on the military death toll. (Hell, we barely ever hear about how many Iraqis - insurgent or Iraqi military/police - are killed. Why? Is it because American deaths are the only political levers? The only considered newsworthy?)

And what narrative necessitates viewing 2,000 military personnel killed as a tremendous number? And historically, has the media employed this same narrrative in other conflicts?

The answer is, "no."

Even in Vietnam, considered a war that the media turned against, the figures were much higher before the media began drilling "big, milestone numbers)" and a "quagmire" focus into the public consciouness with 60+ pt headlines. There is a narrative at work here, the same narrative that started with questions about "quagmire" less than a week into the campaign to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, and continues today with a focus on this numerical "milestone." It is a narrative that ignores history.

And it is important to note that you move the goalposts. Note that I don't completely deride covering the 2,000 deaths marker (though I do find it arbitrary) - but I specifically find the WaPo Express's dramatic presentation to be vulgar and driven by a very specific editorial agenda. Which is what really got my ire this morning. Not tasteful, reserved, respectful - tabloid style.

i agree that 2,000 dead is not the world's biggest story. miletones are milestones, its an excuse to write something that looks new. But yes, only american deaths are newsworthy. A young white girl lost on vacation on Aruba, however, merits much more coverage than 2,000 american military deaths.

If you would have told me prior to the invasion itself that 2,000 troops would die in 2.5 years of war, precipitated by an invasion of a country the size of Iraq, I would have found your estimate remarkably low.

If we had told you prior to the invasion itself that the rationale offered would turn out to be a lie, and that those troops died uselessly while making America *less* secure, how would you have found the war?

And please, Bill, when you answer Phoenician's question, kindly do us the justice to remember that we *did* say at the time that the war was based on lies, was a terrible mistake, would serve to enlist thousands of new terrorists, and would leave America less secure.

If we had told you prior to the invasion itself that the rationale offered would turn out to be a lie...

I don't know whether you can't read or just refuse to, but it's rather pathetic that in this stage of the game you still don't know the difference between acting in good faith on bad information and deliberate deception. Especially considering that the rest of the world's intelligence agencies concurred along with the media.

"weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that,"

My candy-ass already served my nation in the 1980s by joining the Navy (USS Reasoner FF1063), so my right to protest is firmly in place. As a counterpoint, I don't want the fate of the country in the hands of macho-talking, whackjob National Guardsmen who don't believe in the first amendment.

At any rate, ANY NUMBER of American deaths is unacceptable in a war of choice that was predicated on a tissue of lies and neocon masturbation fantasies. So 2000 deaths is really, really big news.

I don't want the fate of the country in the hands of macho-talking, whackjob National Guardsmen who don't believe in the first amendment.

Sheesh. How many times does it have to be said that criticism is not censorship? At least one more time, I guess...

hello sir!!
I m Zeenat from Pakistan.I want some help from you if u dont mind.I have got a project in which i m going to show my movie start by the globe or earth which will be revolving and then i want to enter Pakistan from there like showing pakistan and then Bird eye view of our City Peshawar.So i am unable to find a rotating or revolving Earth or Globe.Can youu help me and send me some movie clips of an Earth revolving or Globe rotating
i shall be thankful to you for this act of kindness. thank you
Zeenat

http://www.ringtones-rate.com/mp3/ ringtones site. Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more. from website .

mdsjtnp sklvb txmf rotkl eznj yxbc xhsoq