In commemoration of the second 1,000 U.S. servicemen to die in Iraq, the New York Times ran thumbnail portraits of each fallen solider. Some have argued that this is a biased move to cynically arouse public opposition to the war.
While I believe that running these photographs can be seen as honoring these soldiers (and indeed, if I had a relative who died in the war, I would want his picture to be commemorated in a similar manner), it is that the photos are running now that gives one pause. Commemorating an arbitrary number such as 2,000 breaks the pattern of how American news organizations mark quantitative milestones (e.g., papers tend to focus on the first anniversary of something, then the fifth, then the tenth, and so on.) In doing so, the Times opens itself up to criticism that it is overtly against the war.
While I hope that the American casualty rate does not reach a number like 5,000 or 10,000, it would make more sense to run these photographs at that milestone, or at the conclusion of American military involvement in Iraq. By running these photographs before either milestone is reached, the Times allows a solemn tribute to be cast as a politically motivated stunt.
Melanie Brooks @ October 27, 2005 - 4:54pm
Personally I think someone needs to arouse public opinion to the war, whether it's cynical or positive. I think what the Times did was right on. In regards to the number, 2,000 is a lot more round than, say, 1,998. Since deaths aren't as common as they were in other wars (Vietnam, WWII), the Times capitalized on the number 2,000 rather than wait another year or two to capitalize on 5,000. Lets hope the death toll doesn't get much higher. What is so amazing to me is that we are in a war and it doesn't really feel like it. Good for the Times to put it out there in our faces.
»