The State and Movements of the Taliban
By Zack Winston
Wed the 21st
Slate.com - "Prisoners Dilemma"
Article deals with the rights of the Taliban soldiers
who are surrendering. The Article points out the we
are not holding a tight leash around the Northern Alliance
fighters who may take revenge on the Taliban and kill
surrendering soldiers. This forces the Taliban to continue
fighting because surrender means death anyway. The article
leans to the belief that this is what the US wants,
but it prolongs the fighting.
Daily News - "Email From the Bad Guys"
This article is about an email that was sent out that
declared that the commander at Kunduz (Dadulla) wishes
to surrender the Taliban forces there. The message was
relayed from Dadulla to Pakistan, to the Neatherlands
where an Afghan student got it and emailed it out to
everybody who would listen. (including to the president's
address.) The Email also says that they would not surrender
to the Northern Alliance for fear of being slaughtered
by their forces.
The Difference between these two is that Slate.com
piece was critical of the American attitude toward this
situation at Kunduz. The Daily News piece was almost
rejoicing the apparent begging for a surrender. There
was a cool picture of a Northern Alliance soldier, armed
with some kind of rocket launcher.
Thurs. the 22nd-
Slate.com- "Kundun"
This article deals with the surrender options that
have filtered out of Kunduz, the Taliban occupied city
that is under fierce attack from the Northern Alliance.
One of the surrender options has the Taliban retreating
to Pakistan. This option is unacceptable for the US.
They do not want the Taliban to leave only to have them
reek terror again. Another surrender condition is simply
living because the Taliban is afraid of being shot upon
while surrendering. Slate is receiving information on
the surrender from other news sources.
Daily News - "I want Bin Laden Dead, Rumsfeld
Declares."
Rumsfeld is quoted saying on 60 minutes that personally,
he would want Bin Laden dead. The US is preparing to
send marines to Pakistani-Afghan border to begin an
intense search campaign for the Al-Queda general. This
comes just after Kunduz, the Taliban's last occupied
city in the North is about to run over by Northern Alliance
soldiers. The details of the surrender are going on
now.
The difference in the two is that the Slate article
is bland, getting information from the New York Times,
the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and others.
The Daily News' article starts out with this exciting
declaration from our Defense Secretary, with picture.
Then it gets to the info on Kunduz.
Fri the 23rd-
Slate.com- "The Fog of War"
Slate reports that coverage of the Taliban's status
in Kunduz is conflicting. News sources like the New
York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times,
USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal have been giving
conflicting reports on the surrender at Kunduz. Apparently
the combatants themselves don't know what's going on.
Some Taliban commanders have tried to surrender, while
others press on.
The Daily News- "Deal to Give up Kunduz"
Reports that the Taliban is surrendering is surrendering
the city of Kunduz, last stronghold in the North for
the Taliban. They plan to turn over thousands of foreign
soldiers who are loyal to Bin Laden. One stumbling block
remains: what to do with the foreign soldiers who fought
and trained with Bin Laden. The US doesn't plan on letting
them go. It appears that the US is doing everything
it can to hunt down and punish the Taliban and Al-Queda
forces.
The difference between the two is that the Slate piece,
by using different sources in Afghanistan can't commit
to one story. The Daily News comes right out and says
the Taliban is surrendering, almost hiding the main
impasse of the negotiations: what to do with foreign
troops. The Slate piece makes sure that the reader should
wait to hear more because the news coming out is conflicting.
The News wants the reader to be assured that the US
and the Northern Alliance are in control and the Taliban
is paying the price.
Sat the 24th-
Slate.com- "Osama:Where Art Thou?"
Article talks about Pakistan flying their Taliban
soldiers out of the bombarded city of Kunduz. Special-Ops
forces are looking for Bin Laden and other Al-Queda
forces. They are being deployed out of Pakistan Air
Force bases. Bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown, but
sources say that he has been to his former hideout in
Jalalabad.
Daily News- "Surrender or Else, Rebels Warn"
The negotiations for surrender of Kunduz turned
into an ultimatum: surrender or an all out assault will
commence. There is fear of a bloodbath if this happens.
Pressure from the Pentagon is to kill or imprison Al-Queda
fighters, not to let them go. Pakistani's are being
evacuated by plane, although the US denies this, saying
that they control the skies. Right now forces across
the land are holding back from a full-scale attack to
avoid civilian casualties.
The difference in these two articles is that the Slate
article goes into two separate stories: The hunt for
Bin Laden and the Pakistani's being evacuated. The article
doesn't appear to give much hope that Bin Laden will
be found anytime soon. The News also reports that Pakistanis
are being evacuated from Kunduz, but the paper also
mentions that the US denies this. The Ultimatum headline
is also a positive image that shows that we mean business.
Mon the 26th-
Slate.com - "The Taliban's Last Afghanistand"
This article tells about the Marines that are being
sent into Afghanistan to finish off the Taliban, in
particular at Kandahar, the last Taliban strong point
after the surrender of Kunduz. The large number of ground
troops being sent is too root out Al-Queda personnel,
as well as Bin Laden who is in hiding. The article takes
off though and goes into detail about a prison uprising
in which an american was said to have been killed. Then
the article inexplicably goes off tangent to human cloning
leaving me confused.
Daily News - "Marines Join the Invasion South"
This article is about the US' full intent in capturing
Bin Laden by sending in large forces of Marinesto look
for him. The article also confirms that the Northern
Alliance has control of Kunduz, a report the Slate did
not confirm.
The difference in these two articles has to do with
the surrender of Kunduz. The News reports that Kunduz
is under Northern Alliance control. There is picture
that displays Taliban soldiers being carted by Afghan
troops away from the front line at Kunduz. Slate's sources
are still conflicting so they will not confirm that
Kunduz is in the Alliance's hands. The Tangent that
the Slate piece went off in threw me for a loop.
Conclusion-
What I gathered from this study is that the two
papers cater to their audiences well. The News caters
to the common shmo, the blue collar man. It is almost
always good news and pro american. The pictures always
show the good things because we are doing so well there.
The Slate.com user is more sophisticated. They don't
want to hear all good news. They are too smart to believe
that everything we are doing there is just. It is also
obvious that Slate doesn't have its own correspondent
over there, so they rely on information that other sophisticated
news sources give out. These sources are the New York
Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA
Today, and the Wall Street Journal. They share the same
audiences Slate is guessing and they all have histories
of good reporting, so the information they release is
reliable.
The Slate stories almost always go off and bring the
reader to another story. I felt like I was almost tricked
into some of the reading. I thought the News pieces
were easier to read because of this. The Slate pieces
were long, but I found that they didn't take to long
to read. Overall I was happy with both coverages.
Home | First
Wave | Undertow | Reflections
| Stepping Stones
| Weblogs
Contributors
| About Us | Archive
|