cross any language barriers. There were some people, after all, who accepted the claim that Berg was killed because prisoners had been abused, and even took his death as evidence for their arguments against the way detainees were being treated.[1]
With no image from the end of the tape, without the final frame that reminded us that the blame for this unspeakable act—which could not be justified in any terms—rested squarely with those who had committed it, the appearance was created that this was in some sense if not a legitimate, then an understandable tit-for-tat. We had reaped as we had sown. Again, I am not arguing that this is what the networks were arguing. I am arguing that they used footage that made this argument in a subtle, powerful way—this is, after all, ultimately, propaganda material—without showing that part of the footage that puts the lie to that visual claim. In essence, they aired extremely effective propaganda material without doing any of the necessary work of unpacking or deconstructing it to make it less effective. Indeed, rather than explain how these tapes work to communicate the terrorist or insurgent message, rather than explain the strategy underlying the construction of these tapes as persuasive texts, the reporters in some cases did the work of the terrorists by explaining (and therefore magnifying) their message.
McGINNIS: Barry, what is the impact of this hostage-taking on stability in the region and the rebuilding effort?
PETERSEN: I think it's going to be very, very bad for any effort to rebuild this country. I think it’s going to send a signal to foreign workers, American engineers, people who have the expertise that the rebuilding is going to take, that this is not a place to be. It's a very unsafe place. And even if the people want to go, you can imagine the76
- ↑ See, for example, Leonard Pitts, "Because America Should Know Better," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 15, 2004, p. 17A, available from Lexis-Nexis Academic, web.lexis-nexis.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/universe/document?_m=f14719a71233a8638da7dce03bdafc8e&_docnum=8&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVA&_md5=7a3af61693a7b50ae2bad00d8fbe23c4. USA Today simply accepted the link between the two events, covering the release of the videotape as "a bloody scene that appears to mark the first violent response to U.S. abuse of Iraqi captives at Baghdad's Abu (sic) Ghraib prison." Bill Nichols, "Video Shows Beheading of American Captive," USA Today, May 11, 2004, available from usatoday.com, www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm.
