thanks for the heads-up about this story.
Although i have not seen any "allegations" of the "lack" of media coverage of the Berg story.

Then, I take it, you haven't been reading very many blogs over the last week.

I don't read much far Right propaganda, so I had not heard of this either.

I would be interested in knowing whether the march was organized by interested parties (ie., military intelligence and the CIA, along with the thugs and opportunists in the provisional government) or really represents Iraqi public opinion. If the story gets legs beyond a conservative opinion piece writer, that will surely be looked into.

I find it very disturbing that you seem to support a situation, that, if it exists, could lead to civil war in Iraq, Howard. Suggests that Iraqi lives have little value to you.

As for the phrase 'pro-liberation,' it is rather pathetic. An occupying force is not a 'liberating' force. The Iraqis have made it clear that they are not fooled by such wordplay at all. They know their country is occupied.

Over all, this is a rather sad effort to divert attention from the real news out of Iraq this week. Friedman must be desperate.

Jade, your perception is accurate. if the Nick Berg story was covered anymore than it has been, it would have been wall-to-wall. Here in the States, it damn near was.

Yes. I heard colin powell complaing that the arab nations had not expressed enough shocko over the berg beheading. i an not sure this is the time that we should be telling others countries how to express their anger. ..

BUT...i tell you...

there is way more with this beg fellow than meets the eye.

something is not jelling.

any thoughts?

jack e. jett

I am reading Nick Berg as kind of naive. Also, the only trouble he had in Iraq previously was with with U.S. controlled Iraqi personnel and American intelligence. He might have expected more hassles from them, and been distracted from the other possibility -- trouble from Islamic zealots.

Ideally, from where we sit, he should have left Iraq as soon as he was released from jail. But, we were not there. We can't know what Berg was thinking.

My understanding of Nick Berg is that he had completed a job in Iraq and was due to fly out of the country, back home. Just before leaving, he was picked up and taking to a jail in Mosul. Berg's email claims it was American soldiers. The US says it was Iraqi police; Iraqi police deny this. Berg's family threatened to sue the US government for his release. The next day, after a week of detention, he was released. Berg had missed his flight and was trying to find other ways out of Iraw, like travel through Turkey, etc. He was also trying to find other work while stuck there. It was while travelling to another possible job that he was captured by his eventual killers. Again, this is what I understand to be the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the Berg video. Note that the Abu Ghraib pictures were shown complete, with only some digitising to cover the "non-FCC Ok'd" parts. These pictures are still being shown, repeatedly. I didn't watch the news until the day after the story broke (the next news cycle), and by then the Berg video was only a fuzzy still shot of Berg sitting before the gun- and paper-toting killers. The NBC News report I saw was a brief recap of the Berg murder that sequed into a several-times longer story about Abu Ghraib. With the pictures.

The complete video, to my knowledge, has never been shown on American cable and broadcast television. Nor are snippets of his death shown with digitising to cover the blood and gore. After the first day it has only been stills of him sitting before his captors.

Nor do I think the picture from Iraq of his body by the side of the road ever been shown. While not truly gruesome, it is sad and horrible.

It's that disparity of what's shown and how often in the two stories that irritates so many.

Buy yourself a clue, Mike. (And, I did not even watch that vapid television program.) You stated the reason complete video of a person being beheaded will not appear on American television -- broadcast standards. Then you turned around and ignored it to fit in with Right Wing agenda. Another reason is taste. And, frankly, I agree with the decision not to show the material in its entirety. Anyone who wants to see and hear the gory details can do so on the Internet, or even buy the footage. Persons who want the video shown all over the place seem, not so coincidentally, persons eager to urge hatred toward Muslims. I'm glad the media did not stoop to providing them with something to misuse.

In a nutshell: The claim that the Berg story has been the subject of suppression is ludicrous.

Furthermore, the march being touted by Friedman is barely a footnote to what is going on in Iraq. If there is a sudden embracing of American occupation by the Iraqis, I am sure it will be big news the world over.

"You stated the reason complete video of a person being beheaded will not appear on American television -- broadcast standards."

I said no such thing. Quote the relevant passage if you think I did. I compared the treatment of Abu Ghraib photos with the treatment of the Berg video.

"The claim that the Berg story has been the subject of suppression is ludicrous."

I don't speak for others, but I claimed no such thing. I merely noted, and demonstrated, a disparity of treatment.

You may have not used to those precise words, but you are definitely following the marching orders handed known by Glen Reynolds, Mike.

*Claim the Iraqi detainee abuse story and the Nick Berg story are equivalent, though they aren't.

*Then say that the American media made too much of Iraqi inmate abuse (for example, pretend it is about fake pornographic pictures) and not enough of Berg's decapitation.

*Try to bully the media into showing the full gruesome video.

The purpose of all of it being to maximumly incite anger toward Muslims.

Save your sophistry for your blog readers. I will not fall for it at all.

"You may have not used to those precise words, but you are definitely following the marching orders handed known by Glen Reynolds, Mike."

Not-quite-apology accepted, MD. But now you've implied I'm some kind of fascist or authoritarian stooge! If I'm so dumb I have to do what others say, why are you arguing with me? Take it to Glenn, no?

"*Claim the Iraqi detainee abuse story and the Nick Berg story are equivalent, though they aren't."

I did no such thing. I compared the treatment of the images from the stories.

"*Then say that the American media made too much of Iraqi inmate abuse (for example, pretend it is about fake pornographic pictures) and not enough of Berg's decapitation."

Again, I did not. I said nothing about "fake pornographic pictures." That's what you are saying now. As I tried to demonstrate, there was a disparity of treatment of the images. I was implicitly saying that they should have been treated more alike: either all shown with digitising, or not much shown with heavy editing.

"*Try to bully the media into showing the full gruesome video."

"Bully?" I merely pointed out differences. How do you arrive at the characterisation "bully?"

"The purpose of all of it being to maximumly incite anger toward Muslims."

I made no mention of nationality or ethnicity. Nor was there any mention of a course of action against anyone, implied or otherwise, in my comparison. I was speaking to and about the "press." Please do not impute your fears to my presumed motives.

"Save your sophistry for your blog readers. I will not fall for it at all."

OK, first I'm an order-following stooge and now I'm smart enough to engage in "sophistry?" If I weren't otherwise confused I might be pleased by the compliment. You keep jumping around so much that it's no wonder you slip so often on the banana peels of reality.

Have a nice life, Mac Diva! :-)