The State and Movements of the Taliban
By Zack Winston

Wed the 21st

Slate.com - "Prisoners Dilemma"
Article deals with the rights of the Taliban soldiers who are surrendering. The Article points out the we are not holding a tight leash around the Northern Alliance fighters who may take revenge on the Taliban and kill surrendering soldiers. This forces the Taliban to continue fighting because surrender means death anyway. The article leans to the belief that this is what the US wants, but it prolongs the fighting.

Daily News - "Email From the Bad Guys"
This article is about an email that was sent out that declared that the commander at Kunduz (Dadulla) wishes to surrender the Taliban forces there. The message was relayed from Dadulla to Pakistan, to the Neatherlands where an Afghan student got it and emailed it out to everybody who would listen. (including to the president's address.) The Email also says that they would not surrender to the Northern Alliance for fear of being slaughtered by their forces.

The Difference between these two is that Slate.com piece was critical of the American attitude toward this situation at Kunduz. The Daily News piece was almost rejoicing the apparent begging for a surrender. There was a cool picture of a Northern Alliance soldier, armed with some kind of rocket launcher.

Thurs. the 22nd-

Slate.com- "Kundun"
This article deals with the surrender options that have filtered out of Kunduz, the Taliban occupied city that is under fierce attack from the Northern Alliance. One of the surrender options has the Taliban retreating to Pakistan. This option is unacceptable for the US. They do not want the Taliban to leave only to have them reek terror again. Another surrender condition is simply living because the Taliban is afraid of being shot upon while surrendering. Slate is receiving information on the surrender from other news sources.

Daily News - "I want Bin Laden Dead, Rumsfeld Declares."
Rumsfeld is quoted saying on 60 minutes that personally, he would want Bin Laden dead. The US is preparing to send marines to Pakistani-Afghan border to begin an intense search campaign for the Al-Queda general. This comes just after Kunduz, the Taliban's last occupied city in the North is about to run over by Northern Alliance soldiers. The details of the surrender are going on now.

The difference in the two is that the Slate article is bland, getting information from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and others. The Daily News' article starts out with this exciting declaration from our Defense Secretary, with picture. Then it gets to the info on Kunduz.

Fri the 23rd-

Slate.com- "The Fog of War"
Slate reports that coverage of the Taliban's status in Kunduz is conflicting. News sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal have been giving conflicting reports on the surrender at Kunduz. Apparently the combatants themselves don't know what's going on. Some Taliban commanders have tried to surrender, while others press on.

The Daily News- "Deal to Give up Kunduz"
Reports that the Taliban is surrendering is surrendering the city of Kunduz, last stronghold in the North for the Taliban. They plan to turn over thousands of foreign soldiers who are loyal to Bin Laden. One stumbling block remains: what to do with the foreign soldiers who fought and trained with Bin Laden. The US doesn't plan on letting them go. It appears that the US is doing everything it can to hunt down and punish the Taliban and Al-Queda forces.

The difference between the two is that the Slate piece, by using different sources in Afghanistan can't commit to one story. The Daily News comes right out and says the Taliban is surrendering, almost hiding the main impasse of the negotiations: what to do with foreign troops. The Slate piece makes sure that the reader should wait to hear more because the news coming out is conflicting. The News wants the reader to be assured that the US and the Northern Alliance are in control and the Taliban is paying the price.

Sat the 24th-

Slate.com- "Osama:Where Art Thou?"
Article talks about Pakistan flying their Taliban soldiers out of the bombarded city of Kunduz. Special-Ops forces are looking for Bin Laden and other Al-Queda forces. They are being deployed out of Pakistan Air Force bases. Bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown, but sources say that he has been to his former hideout in Jalalabad.

Daily News- "Surrender or Else, Rebels Warn"
The negotiations for surrender of Kunduz turned into an ultimatum: surrender or an all out assault will commence. There is fear of a bloodbath if this happens. Pressure from the Pentagon is to kill or imprison Al-Queda fighters, not to let them go. Pakistani's are being evacuated by plane, although the US denies this, saying that they control the skies. Right now forces across the land are holding back from a full-scale attack to avoid civilian casualties.

The difference in these two articles is that the Slate article goes into two separate stories: The hunt for Bin Laden and the Pakistani's being evacuated. The article doesn't appear to give much hope that Bin Laden will be found anytime soon. The News also reports that Pakistanis are being evacuated from Kunduz, but the paper also mentions that the US denies this. The Ultimatum headline is also a positive image that shows that we mean business.

Mon the 26th-

Slate.com - "The Taliban's Last Afghanistand"
This article tells about the Marines that are being sent into Afghanistan to finish off the Taliban, in particular at Kandahar, the last Taliban strong point after the surrender of Kunduz. The large number of ground troops being sent is too root out Al-Queda personnel, as well as Bin Laden who is in hiding. The article takes off though and goes into detail about a prison uprising in which an american was said to have been killed. Then the article inexplicably goes off tangent to human cloning leaving me confused.

Daily News - "Marines Join the Invasion South"
This article is about the US' full intent in capturing Bin Laden by sending in large forces of Marinesto look for him. The article also confirms that the Northern Alliance has control of Kunduz, a report the Slate did not confirm.

The difference in these two articles has to do with the surrender of Kunduz. The News reports that Kunduz is under Northern Alliance control. There is picture that displays Taliban soldiers being carted by Afghan troops away from the front line at Kunduz. Slate's sources are still conflicting so they will not confirm that Kunduz is in the Alliance's hands. The Tangent that the Slate piece went off in threw me for a loop.

Conclusion-
What I gathered from this study is that the two papers cater to their audiences well. The News caters to the common shmo, the blue collar man. It is almost always good news and pro american. The pictures always show the good things because we are doing so well there.
The Slate.com user is more sophisticated. They don't want to hear all good news. They are too smart to believe that everything we are doing there is just. It is also obvious that Slate doesn't have its own correspondent over there, so they rely on information that other sophisticated news sources give out. These sources are the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. They share the same audiences Slate is guessing and they all have histories of good reporting, so the information they release is reliable.
The Slate stories almost always go off and bring the reader to another story. I felt like I was almost tricked into some of the reading. I thought the News pieces were easier to read because of this. The Slate pieces were long, but I found that they didn't take to long to read. Overall I was happy with both coverages.

Home | First Wave | Undertow | Reflections | Stepping Stones | Weblogs

Contributors | About Us | Archive