The headline in The Sun this morning:
I do conclude, and acknowledge, The Sun is quite enthusiastic and nationalistic on foreign affairs and gives passionate support to the forces in general. However, let us not romantise the arena of war.
We are intervening in Libya to prevent a genocide and liberate the country from a bloodthirsty tyrant; Great Britain is not there to celebrate a body count or take pleasure in turning cities into rubble. Careful consideration is needed in headlines from the media because we don’t want our adversaries using these front pages as propaganda. There is nothing enjoyable about obliterating a part of Northern Africa and the press should suggest there is.
After all, FOXNews is praising Liam Fox for, and I quote, ‘leveling four floors‘ at Gaddafi’s compound and are disgusted by Obama’s lack of desire to do the same. According to our American partners in the media, Britain and France are showing a level of courage by going after anyone in the regime. Dangerously, Britain’s participation could be considered revenge if we’re going out of the permit of the UN resolution and targeting anyone linked to Gaddafi. The Prime Minister made the effort to highlight Lockerbie and the financing of the Provisional IRA as significant reasons for British military action. But was it really wise to appeal to people’s emotions and anxiety to justify war?
There were even a minority who advocate the targeting of the Lockerbie bomber and all those involved during these air strikes. Revenge should not be the face to paint the military operation.
And, by the way, don’t get me started on The Empire Strikes Back narrative used by a Daily Telegraph columnist. Utterly, utterly odious and facetious. If this is how mature the press are, when reporting on war, then God help us all if World War III ever breaks out.
If I was Cameron, I’d feel rather uncomfortable by sections of the press this morning.
(Image source: The Sun and Skynews.com)
danielfurr
