[SlackDad]

Interesting comment from the excellent Medialens on the press response to Saddam's trial.

In other words, the response in Iraq was, of course, mixed. But both the BBC and the New York Times chose a focus that presented the verdict as a joyous success for the occupying forces.


Although Britain outlawed the death penalty 40 years ago, the editors of the Independent had few qualms about the former tyrant's fate:

"Shed no tears for Saddam. He was undoubtedly guilty of mass murder... The chemical weapons attack he ordered on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 alone killed at least 5,000." (Leader, 'Justice in Baghdad - It's too late for the conviction of Saddam to help heal Iraq,' The Independent, November 6, 2006)

It was predictable that Halabja would be mentioned. It was equally predictable that crucial context would be missing. In the same edition of the paper, the Independent's outspoken reporter Robert Fisk noted some of the things that Saddam had not been allowed to comment on in his trial: "sales of [British and American] chemicals to his Nazi-style regime so blatant - so appalling - that he has been sentenced to hang on a localised massacre of Shias rather than the wholesale gassing of Kurds over which George W Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara were so exercised when they decided to depose Saddam". (Fisk, 'This was a guilty verdict on America as well,' The Independent, November 6, 2006)

Fisk's point was obvious, and vital for anyone who cares about democracy and honest government. But the Independent editorial turned a blind eye to it.

LINK