The answer lies between the lines that bring out the news of the war in both Britain and the US. Steven was a victim of terror – no doubts about it. But his being American was just half the story. His murder is only an attempt by a pagan enemy to a nation of soldiers and newsmongers called the US, an attempt by the people to tell the world that these men did not report the brewing of the soup as much as they cry about the murderous soup called the war on terror being served on the platters of international diplomatic circles. It was not what the press said that lead to the murder of Steven, but what the press did not say that led to his killing. Or rather does the silence of the press intend to say more than they said in words. Do the gloomy looking news readers on channels in the UK say more than they could express in words Should that really have been the scenario Did that silence warrant the murder of a promising journalist Where do we go from here
They are perceived as independent commentators by the people and in many cases – such as the Iraq war, their independence has turned out to be a spook rather than truth. Independent reporting is a thing of the pastor is at least as fictitious as Jack and his Bean Stalk. What is most obvious from these reports is that it has sidelined human rights largely in countries where western armies are operating. In most cases, the despots are simply terrorists that need to be done with and in certain countries, the despots are the best available choices and friends of these nations. Press in the west has made this mistake time and again. The recent examples are President Suharto of Indonesia and his mass murder venture in East Timor which was largely underplayed by the western media. This process went on for a substantial period of fifteen years.