The coverage of the nuclear bunker buster bombs is a really good example of how the news is managed. First of all, Kerry didn't get anywhere near the front page because of that new Iraqi President in the traditional garb. He not only made for a good picture, but, despite having no actual power at this point, was considered important because the President talked about him with reporters.
Both the Times and the Boston Globe covered the Kerry speech, but, because the White House set up conference calls with supporters of its policies, what was covered in the stories was what the White House wanted emphasised--i.e. the proposal to accellerate the collection and securing of Russian and Soviet Union nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
Chambliss of Georgia even went to far as to say that WMD are not a problem as long as there are no terrorists.
Oddly enough, mention of the commitment to abandon the development of NEW nuclear weapons by the United States popped up in a story about a speech on bioterrorism that hasn't even been delivered yet. In other words, the Associated Press put out a story on the basis of an advanced copy of a speech and the reporter, perhaps in the interest of actually presenting news about something that's already happened, included a mention of the bunker buster bombs.
It will be interesting to see if the European press picks up on it.
Can we blame those who are skeptical of our commitment towards arms control and nuclear disarmament when our government is gearing up to make new ones?
But the argument that WMD are only a problem in the hands of terrorists is a new one on me. Shouldn't be surprised though. It's consistent with the argument that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." So, the thing to do is to kill people who kill. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by Hannah at June 2, 2004 08:02 AM