There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about reports about the military strikes in Yemen.
Politicians go out of their way to denounce whistleblowers and "leakers" whose revelations of classified data, they claim, have harmed national security. But it's always worth pointing out that the outrage is selective.
A headline is sometimes worth a thousand words, and this was definitely the case after a deadly drone strike occurred in Yemen last week. "Drone Strike Kills Six Suspected Militants in Yemen,” a Reuters headline (8/7/13) declared. "More Suspected Al-Qaeda Militants Killed as Drone Strikes Intensify in Yemen," a CNN.com headline (8/8/13) offered. Whatever the language, one message was clear: "Suspected terrorists" or "militants" had been killed. But with several drone strikes over the past week in Yemen, how can anyone actually know who is being killed? The deceptive way the Obama administration defines "militants" has already been well-established–as the New […]
When Jeremy Scahill called out a CNN reporter for an error, she eventually corrected her mistake on the air. That's good– and more outlets should be doing the same. Unfortunately the "non-correction correction" is more typical–or, as in the case of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, a media figure will simply ignore the issue.
In a moment when media are fixated on terrorism and the possibility that some people might be motivated to carry out acts of violence against the United States in part because of the effects of U.S. wars, a Yemeni writer's account of the effects of drone strikes on his village would be well worth covering.