The Next Abu Ghraib?

I was reading through “Playbook” on April 6^th and this item caught by eye:

“CHARLIE HURT column, "Reporters continue to be snookered by Obama": "Your trusted mainstream media is every bit as much in the bag for the Obama campaign this time as it was last time. The most stunning example of this has played out in the two weeks since the release of grisly photographs showing our own troops murdering Afghan citizens and posing for gruesome pictures with the corpses." http://bit.ly/eJIP7S”

I disagree with the Washington Times columnists’ view that the MSM is entirely in the tank for Obama, but I think that Hurt does raise interesting questions about why certain things get covered by major domestic and others do not. The photos that Hurt is referring too—found here—are among the more grisly war photography that I have ever seen. Certainly, the shock-and-awe affect of this artwork, particularly as a complement to a story about a US military unit that indiscriminately murdered Afghan civilians, as at least equal to that of the Abu Ghraib prison pictures from Iraq in 2003, whose release led to a massive media and public backlash for the Bush Administration. Therefore, why has there been so little media outcry in response to Rolling Stone’s photographs? What with the pictures are so graphic, and the narrative so jarring, it is a story that could sell a lot of papers, so to speak.

If you’re feeling brave, look through the photos—though in all seriousness, exercise discretion. Then tell me you’re not surprised nobody in the image-obsessed, scandal-chasing press corps has made a big deal about it.