When is a list not just a list? That question will generate much debate, whether much actual understanding occurs or not, with tonight's airing of "Nightline" on ABC.

"Nightline" producers plan to have anchorman Ted Koppel read aloud the names of all U.S. military personnel killed in the latest war in Iraq, more than 500 killed in action and 200-plus non-combat deaths. A picture of the person will appear on the screen while Koppel reads the name.

Leroy Sievers, executive producer for what is supposed to be a news program, gave this spin on the reason for tonight's unusual format: "These people have paid the ultimate price in our name and it's important to remember them, whether you think the price is worth it or not. … It may not be great television. But it's the right thing to do, and that's why we're doing it."

By the way, Sievers also denies that the fact networks' "sweeps" period began Thursday has anything to do with "Nightline's" timing. Ratings garnered during sweeps periods are used by networks to determine how much they can charge for advertising over the next several months.

How about the other side? Brent Bozell, president of Media Research Center, said, "I think it's intellectually dishonest to deny the partisan nature of this broadcast. Of course, it's partisan! What's the purpose? There's only one goal in mind: It's to turn public opinion against the war."

Others have pointed to a precedent set 25 years ago in Life, when the popular magazine ran a cover story titled "One Week's Dead." The spread, covering 11 pages, included photographs of more than 200 servicemen killed in the Vietnam War during a seven-day period.

Some argue that we have to be exposed to the names -- and especially the photos -- of those killed in action so we can truly appreciate the horrors of loss of life that come with all wars.

I, for one, am not convinced Time or "Nightline" pieces such as the one tonight add anything to understanding. As far as I have been able to determine, "Nightline" won't list how these people were killed -- i.e., rocket-propelled grenade launched from several buildings away by an unseen attacker, a bomb left along a roadside, a suicide bomb attack at a checkpoint, "friendly" fire mishaps -- nor will it have any discussion of Iraqis, including all those serving as policemen trying to restore order, killed in attacks over the last several months.

If we are going to honor those who have paid "the ultimate price" shouldn't we at least include all civilian casualties, including the missionaries and civilian contractors murdered by terrorists in Iraq? What about those servicemen and women in Afghanistan? Aren't they worthy of a tribute? That's not to even touch on all those men and women who have been wounded, or the doctors who give up the potential gains of civilian practice to treat our military servicemen.

Is there a "Nightline" segment planned about Pat Tillman, former NFL player who was recently killed in Afghanistan after walking away from a multi-million dollar contract for playing a game to go into the military? Is there a segment planned listing all those family members whose loved ones were killed in Iraq? How about something on how they are coping or how others have stepped up to help them?

A list is just a list -- without genuine news value or any true perspective -- when it's done the Time or "Nightline" way: as just one side of a debate, without any counterpoint.