Media Gets Bored with Bombs
Bryan McBournie | Staff Writer

Just a little over a week ago, the media changed its view on "America's New War." Once-avid supporters of the retaliation from the attacks of Sept. 11, the media is now asking, "should we really be there?"

What brought on this suddent change? The answer is simple: in a war that was admittedly going to take a very long time, reporters got bored with bombings. They wanted something more interesting, something fresh to report about.

What did they get? A picture of a dead infant, which the Taliban claimed was killed as a result of the US bombings. The American press ate up the idea that there may be some innocents killed in the war on terrorism.

In this new breed of war, there won't be much to really report on, not much for reporters to sink their teeth into. The covert and stealthy nature of the war keeps the real goings-on tough to find.

They want pictures of Marines raising an American flag on top of Iwo Jima, or shots of Nazi soldiers on parade in downtown Berlin. What they get are black and white videos of buildings blowing up, and Ashcroft explaining that progress is being made.

When reporters can't report, they get antsy, and struggle for a new angle on an old story. So we now have the same story being reported again, with a dove point of view.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go watch the Daily Show.