This is an excerpt from the MSNBC story that I linked to below.
It related to the coverage that the torture pictures were getting from U.S. papers.
David D. Perlmutter, a historian of war and media at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, said the decision showed that U.S. editors understood what kind of war coverage interested U.S. readers.
“The torture pictures are absolutely irrelevant,” said Perlmutter, the author of “Visions of War: Picturing Warfare from the Stone Age to the Cyberage.”
“Americans care about American soldiers, and only journalistic and political and academic elites fret about pictures of collateral damage,” he said. “... If you start talking to the public, you’ll find people sympathizing with the soldiers.”
If the American people don't care about such collateral damage and many are angry with ABC's Nightline for airing the names and photos of all the soldiers who have died in Iraq, just what coverage do they want of the situation in Iraq? Are Pentagon press conferences and Presidential reassurances all that they need to convince them that the war was the right thing to do and everything is going well?
Has the truth become collateral damage?