Press coverage of a nasty incident compared...

[EVDebs]

Accident Sparks Riot in Afghan Capital
Mobs Rampage After Fatal Crash Involving U.S. Military Truck; Curfew Imposed

By Pamela Constable and Javed Hamdard
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900284_pf.html

contains this:

""The violence was fed by rumors that U.S. troops had shot and killed civilians, which U.S. military spokesmen denied.""

as compared to this report

U.S. Troops Fire on Crowd in Kabul After Crash, Riots
By Wesal Zaman, Special to The Times
May 29, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afghcrash29may29,1,5860666.story?coll=la-news-a_section

""U.S. troops opened fire on a crowd of angry demonstrators this morning during a protest that erupted after a U.S. convoy apparently rammed into a traffic jam, Afghan police commanders said.""

Did they fire on the crowd or not ?

[leftchick]

1. 11 were killed

somebody shot them.

[EVDebs]

3. My questions are about how the WashPost covered the story

With today's paper (June 1st) now saying the military admits soldiers had to fire in the crowd in self defense. The other paper simply put the information about the firing into the crowd 'out there' and quoted their sources; the WashPost called it 'rumors', while TV news showed footage of troops 'firing over the heads of the crowd'.

Interesting coverage.

[redqueen]

2. butbutbut... we freed Afghanistan! They love us there!

:puke: