Thread by @ggreenwald

Along with many War on Terror critics, I long argued: a key reason it continued was the media rarely if ever personalized or even noted the victims of US/UK violence, so they remained invisible. Imagine how different things might have been if they had received the same coverage:

https://twitter.com/VALERIEinNYT/status/1499498953720705032

The media attention on Ukrainian victims, refugees, and others is fully appropriate. A key journalistic function is to ensure people see the real results of the policies they support. But that's what was almost never done during 20 years of US wars:

theintercept.com/2015/07/06/civ…

If you say employees of US media corporations propagandize, they'll vehemently - even earnestly - deny: "Nobody tells us what to say," etc.

But much propaganda is from non-coverage. Dramatizing Ukrainian victims while ignoring Yemeni/Pakistani/Afghan victims warps perceptions.

The horrors and extreme human misery, terror and suffering of Ukrainians are common, even inevitable, in wars. Any decent human being will feel deep empathy and anger when shown it. But if you show only some while invisibilizing others, you wildly manipulate people's views.

For the 2014 attack on the Canadian Parliament, I was in Ottawa. Media was saturated with gut-wrenching stories about the 24-year-old guard killed: Corp. Nathan Cirillo's life dreams, his grieving family members. Occurred to me few westerners can name even one victim of US wars.