A Broken Soldier

Though the news concerning Staff Sgt. Robert Bales wasn't the first article listed on nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com, it still made the front page. Sentenced to life in prison on Friday, Bales was convicted of killing 16 Afghan civilians in their homes. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post seemed to agree: Bales was a cold blooded killer. While the journalists seem to agree that the crime committed was deplorable, they took different tones while describing the situation.

The New York Times titled their article, "Life Without Parole for Soldier Who Killed 16 Afghans."

The Washington Post: "Afghans dissatisfied with Bales' sentence of life without release for massacre of their kin."

Both appear factual, but it is the Post that gives a more graphic statement: Bales didn't just kill, he massacred families. It's surprising then, that the Times goes on to a more graphic retelling of the events that took place.

The Times describes the "three days of wrenching testimony that painted a moment-by-moment, bullet-by-bullet account of one of the worst atrocities of the United States' long war in Afghanistan." The Post also marks this as "one of the worst atrocities of the Iraq and Afghan wars," but does not go into quite the colorful detail. The Post also takes this story more from the point of view of the victims, releasing more statements from those who traveled '7,000 miles' to be at the trial. The Times paints the victims and their families as simple folk; "The killings took place in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar Province, in two villages that were little more than an assortment of mud-walled homes, with no electiricty or running water, where residents cultivated wheat and other grains." The Post takes a different approach: ". . . he stalked through mud-walled compounds and shot 22 people — 17 of them women and children."

There are various examples of how the writing of these articles almost completely differ. The Post seems to exemplify the horrors through the eyes of the Afghans who survived--a much more harsh and concise look at the situation.  The Times works to evoke more emotion in the reader, from depicting the pant leg pushed up on a 13 year old to reveal a bullet scar to the use of stronger phrases like "seethed with outrage."

But how is this relevant? Journalism is supposed to help the citizens of the United States retain our democracy, to monitor our government's actions.  Something that has been asked in both my journalism courses this semester--Why do we care about what's going on "over there?" Honestly, I think we just need to know. Perhaps it helps put our own situation in perspective. We have learned recently about the NSA invading our privacy on intimate levels, our commander-in-chief has been making some unconstitutional decisions (so have our state reps) like attempting to waive some welfare work requirements. But at least our military hasn't staged a coup.

A lot may have to do with the fact that the United States isn't an isolated country. We have relations with the rest of the world, and in order for the citizens of the USA to make informed decisions on say, elections (maybe one candidate has better foreign policy plans). One example in the news right now is that we haven't completely stopped funding Egypt's military, even as death tolls continue to rise. We, the people, need to know what we are funding, and if we should raise our voice against it (or for it).

A little more interestingly--we should know how other countries feel about us. The Post article did a much better job letting the readers know how upset the Afghanis were that Bales will not be executed for his crimes. This is an insight into a completely different culture, one that we have been very involved with. In order to fight, or make peace with, our enemies, we need to understand them.

While I do feel that the Washington Post covered this issue with a perspective that informed the public more than the New York Times' article, both used very strong language to approach the human aspect of this case. Both authors wanted to reach the emotions of the reader. I feel that, in doing so, they are burying an important issue: Bales, though his defense lawyer did not present any medical documents discussing PTSD or other possible issues, had been deployed four times. It isn't just the violence toward the citizens overseas we need to worry about. With the rising suicide rates throughout the military, shouldn't we be asking: 'how can we avoid future situations that harm our boys overseas, and those that they come in contact with?'

One last thought: each article addressed the victims as innocent. Are the authors assuming their innocence, or are there extenuating circumstances that we are unaware of? Bales' crimes would be no less horrible, but are we getting the full story? Bales seems to be silent on the matter, in the eyes of "the media" thus far.