Sunday December 31st, the 3,000 mark for US troops killed in Iraq in the illegal war was reached. You might think that would register with independent media. It didn't.
At The Nation website, where they have a real time blog, The Notion, as well as "online exclusives" and a blog by the editor/publisher (Katrina vanden Heuvel), no point in looking for anything Sunday night or Monday, for that matter. Ruth, addressing this silence, wrote last Monday:
A perfect example would be the passing of the 3,000 mark in US military deaths in Iraq yesterday. Check The Nation's website currently and you will find nothing on it. Did everyone get so intoxicated on New Year's Eve that no one could post today? Better question, why is there nothing noting the impending marker? It is not as though, on Sunday, 100 US troops died or were announced dead. The 3,000 mark did not come out of thin air. It is now one day since the milestone. If and when The Nation chooses to tell readers about it, it will be even more distanced.
Apparently they were that intoxicated or else just didn't consider it news. Mike noted that on Tuesday (6:20 p.m. EST), it was kind-of, sort-of, finally 'covered'. In a post of 35 lines about gays and lesbians serving in the military, Richard Kim managed to note, as an aside: "Though the US death toll in Iraq just hit 3,000, President Bush remains adamant about sending a "surge" of up to 40,000 new troops to the region." That is The Nation's coverage of the 3,000 milestone in full.
Pat Roberston goes into crackpot mode again (if he ever leaves) and The Nation's in rapid response mode. The 3,000 mark is reached and there is only silence followed by a mention in one sentence? We don't think that cuts it. And for those thinking, "Okay, they're staying silent because they're planning a fiery editorial on the subject" -- well think again. (The topic is "The Democrat's First Big Test" -- more and more of The Elector every issue.)
Is a milestone a "milestone" if it goes unnoted? Or is it that the left magazine with the largest circulation continues to disappoint with their superficial shout-outs that pass for coverage of the Iraq war?
3,000 dead. And it's worth one line of text to The Nation, two days after the fact. You make the call.
For those having any troubling figuring it out, The New York Times not only did a story on Monday, January 1st, they ran it on the front page, and they made it the center headline of the upper half of the front page.
At The Nation website, where they have a real time blog, The Notion, as well as "online exclusives" and a blog by the editor/publisher (Katrina vanden Heuvel), no point in looking for anything Sunday night or Monday, for that matter. Ruth, addressing this silence, wrote last Monday:
A perfect example would be the passing of the 3,000 mark in US military deaths in Iraq yesterday. Check The Nation's website currently and you will find nothing on it. Did everyone get so intoxicated on New Year's Eve that no one could post today? Better question, why is there nothing noting the impending marker? It is not as though, on Sunday, 100 US troops died or were announced dead. The 3,000 mark did not come out of thin air. It is now one day since the milestone. If and when The Nation chooses to tell readers about it, it will be even more distanced.
Apparently they were that intoxicated or else just didn't consider it news. Mike noted that on Tuesday (6:20 p.m. EST), it was kind-of, sort-of, finally 'covered'. In a post of 35 lines about gays and lesbians serving in the military, Richard Kim managed to note, as an aside: "Though the US death toll in Iraq just hit 3,000, President Bush remains adamant about sending a "surge" of up to 40,000 new troops to the region." That is The Nation's coverage of the 3,000 milestone in full.
Pat Roberston goes into crackpot mode again (if he ever leaves) and The Nation's in rapid response mode. The 3,000 mark is reached and there is only silence followed by a mention in one sentence? We don't think that cuts it. And for those thinking, "Okay, they're staying silent because they're planning a fiery editorial on the subject" -- well think again. (The topic is "The Democrat's First Big Test" -- more and more of The Elector every issue.)
Is a milestone a "milestone" if it goes unnoted? Or is it that the left magazine with the largest circulation continues to disappoint with their superficial shout-outs that pass for coverage of the Iraq war?
3,000 dead. And it's worth one line of text to The Nation, two days after the fact. You make the call.
For those having any troubling figuring it out, The New York Times not only did a story on Monday, January 1st, they ran it on the front page, and they made it the center headline of the upper half of the front page.