(image: irisheyes/flickr)

Glenn Greenwald:

[I]n general, the actual victims of America’s military aggression are typically non-existent in the country’s media discussions (last week, I flagged [http://goo.gl/hbdvf] a CNN article [http://goo.gl/ee0JP] describing one such child-victim precisely because it was so rare to see, though that article has now been substantially re-written (without any explanation) to conform to U.S. Government denials of drone strikes in that part of Pakistan). [http://goo.gl/WWKT0] [emphasis mine]

There are at least three different versions of the same CNN article regarding the Pakistani girls injured/killed by the U.S. drone strike in Swat. Interestingly, each version of the CNN article progressively distances the alleged drone strike from the girls that were injured/killed.

Original:

“All anyone could say is that there had been a U.S. drone attack. The girls were likely hurt in the strike.”

First Revision:

“All anyone could say is that there had been a U.S. drone attack, though it’s not known how the three girls were injured.”

Second Revision:

“All anyone could say is that there had been a U.S. drone attack, though U.S. officials say that drones have never struck targets in Swat.”

At the very least, these revisions seem to indicate illegitimate distortion of the historical record (i.e., historical revisionism). Why are the revisions to the article not explained if they are just? Also, consider why anonymous “U.S. officials” are used. Authority without accountability?

These revisions also indicate some level of cooperation between “U.S. officials” and CNN (extendable to other media outlets?), and that CNN is complicit in revising the historical record.

Sadly, these revisions also indicate the nonperson status the girls injured/killed in Pakistan have with CNN and the State.

***

With respect to the revised CNN articles, here are the detailed changes:

Strikethrough is used to designate deletions from earlier versions of the article, and underline is used to designate added matter.

Original article (Dec 21, 2011):

Texas doctors to operate on girl burned in U.S. drone strike [http://goo.gl/BbXKo]

First revision (Dec 22, 2011 at 10:53 PM [EST?]):

Texas doctor to operate on injured girl [http://goo.gl/C3JMD]

Notice the title change in the first revision.

Texas doctor to operate on injured girl burned in U.S. drone strike

In addition, the following changes were made:

Shakira, believed burned in a U.S. drone strike discovered with severe burns in Pakistan, will undergo reconstructive surgery in January.

All anyone could say is that there had been a U.S. drone attack. The girls were likely hurt in the strike, though it’s not known how the three girls were injured.

The doctor, who was traveling with House of Charity, took them back with him to a clinic. They were in grave condition. Two of the girls died, but the littlest one had a chance of making it if she were treated right away.

Shakira put her hands together and clapped…But she knows she was able to give Shakira new life — and a name that could not have been more fitting.

Second revision (Dec 23, 2011 at 2245 GMT [0645 HKT]): Texas doctor to operate on injured girl [http://goo.gl/K493V]

One of the doctors found three little girls left in a trash bin. They’d suffered horrific injuries.

All anyone could say is that there had been a U.S. drone attack, though it’s not known how the three girls were injured U.S. officials say that drones have never struck targets in Swat.

It was not known how the girls came to be where they were but one thing was clear: they’d suffered horrific injuries.