I'm watching BBC coverage of the war. Fifteen minutes in, and I've seen the sane 4-5 minutes of Iraqi-sanctioned footage of the wounded child, and a few other unlucky injured Iraqis, twice:

My reaction:

• It is important to report images like this, but I question whether they bear repetition twice in under fifteen minutes. Once seems to be for my information, twice seems to be for my education.
• It's somewhat telling Iraqi-govt images of a single wounded child is, in the mind of the BBC, the lead story,
• I feel very very bad for the wounded child. Apparently worse than the local hospital staff, who was letting the child cry, unmedicated and uncomforted, while making political speeches
• There are probably many more like this child, and more even dead. War is horrible.
• Yet, the small number of wounded the government were able to gather up is good evidence of for a low number of civilian casualities -- so far anyway -- but the verdict is not in until the fighting's over.

Now they're covering anti-war protests. I'm still waiting for some information on the actual war itself. Has anything happened? We don't know yet, apparently that's not news, not worth covering in the first third of the hour.

Okay, twenty minutes in we get the first actual coverage of, uh, that war thing. A man stands in Kuwait saying there's no news on what's happening yet, except that they're not to Baghdad yet. We're being compared to troops in Stalingrad. (Stalingrad??)

Echoing lots of information from the Iraqi government, yet relaying no information from the British government or Pentagon. Doesn't that tell you something?