The Guardian Media section has a break-down
on the litany of non-facts that have characterised reporting of the war up to this point. So far that's all the coverage has been about: discovering that what was said two days ago isn't actually true. So much for the value of "embedding".
Unlike Gulf War I, this time it's much easier to get a more comprehensive selection of viewpoints on what's happening - if you can be bothered. Apart from the "unilaterals
" in Baghdad, there's Al Jazeera (if you can log on
- what's that Hacker credo again? "Information wants to be Free"?), and, in any case, the Internet provides the opportunity to survey a wide range of news outlets not otherwise available in your own part of the world. This last is of particular importance in a country where most major cities have one Murdoch-owned "newspaper", pro-war because Rupert is, don't you know. Naturally also the great division in public opinion about the war (and the ludicrous imbalance in military strength between the combatants) gives space to journalists to report - it's hard to imagine Fisky
datelining from the middle of an enemy country during a war all Britons supported, where there was some chance Britain would lose. Still, all this multiplicity of sources really adds up to in the end is one huge mass of grey, which leads everyone to simply pick and choose what's out there on the grounds of how much it helps them buttress their current opinion. No-one is better informed; merely better armoured against opposing views. Even I'm starting not to care what I think.