# Posted 2:38 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ABU GHRAIB VS. NICK BERG: Glenn Reynolds has a long post up on how the mainstream media are paying far more attention to Abu Ghraib despite the fact that the American public has shown a much greater interest in the beheading of Nick Berg.

For Glenn, this constitutes evidence that the media has an anti-Bush agenda and will gradually lose its audience share to more reader-responsive sources of information. I strongly disagree.

There is no question that the media has made a subjective judgment that Abu Ghraib is far more important than the beheading of Nick Berg. But that is a judgment that I strongly endorse and for reasons that should be very familiar to conservatives.

We have known for a long time now that Al Qaeda has no shame and no respect for human life. No matter how gruesome, the beheading of Nick Berg did little more than confirm that fact.

In contrast, the events at Abu Ghraib have severely tarnished America's reputation as the foremost defender of democracy and human rights. In order to restore that reputation, we must ruthlessly pursue justice and punish those responsible for the abuses in order to ensure that this never happens again

American power rests just as much on its reputation as it does on its military and economic might. If we want to continue to use that power to promote American values, then we must restore our reputation.

Historically speaking, American journalists have long believed that they have the right to make judgments on their readers' behalf. There is no question that journalists have often misused this power of judgment.

Yet those who criticize the emphasis of Abu Ghraib at the expense of Nick Berg should remember that the New York Times and Washington Post provide extensive coverage of foreign affairs only because of their subjective judgment that such news is important.

If the leading newspapers and television networks responded exclusively to audience demands, domestic news would quickly displace almost all foreign coverage. And in time, entertainment, weather and sports would displace news about domestic politics.

Again speaking historically, American journalists are most willing to exercise their judgment when American behavior contradicts American principles. That is exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib. I do not doubt for a second that such abuses would receive just as much attention if there were a Democrat in the White House.

The exercise of judgment is an integral but often unacknowledged part of journalism. In this instance, that judgment is absolutely right.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion