THIS MONTH MARKS the sixth anniversary of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Poorly-armed Afghan freedom fighters, known in their own language as "mujahedin," have somehow managed to hold out against over 100,000 Soviet troops armed with the most advanced military hardware ever used on a civilian population. Although Afghanistan is presently the site of the worst genocidal atrocities since World War II, the U.S. news media continues to virtually ignore the Afghan struggle by devoting little or no broadcast time or print space to it.

The recent murder by Soviet troops of an American journalist, Charles Thornton of the Arizona Republic, illustrates this point. Thornton's death occurred shortly after the Soviet Embassy in Kabul issued a warning that Soviet forces would actively seek out and execute journalists covering the mujahedin. Whereas the slaying of a network cameraman in Samoza's Nicaragua made front page headlines a few years ago, Thornton's slaying was hardly mentioned in the U.S. news media. Imagine the stories which would have reported Thornton's slaying had he been killed in El Salvador or South Africa.

Why this lack of media attention? One might be tempted to think that the cost and danger of sending reporters into a distant war-torn land prevents adequate media coverage, but this is clearly not the case. The reports filed by journalists working at the refugee camps in the relative safety of northern Pakistan are quite numerous, and, combined with the smaller number of reports from inside Afghanistan, provide such graphic and horrifying evidence of Soviet atrocities that it's hard to imagine a more gripping and newsworthy event in the world today.

Earlier this year, for instance, freelance journalist Rob Schultheis recorded numerous refugee accounts of the mass execution of 800 people, in the elderly, in the Laghman Valley in eastern Afghanistan. The well-documented level of brutality in this incident place it in the ranks of other well-known civilian massacres, like Guernica or My Lai. National Public Radio was the only U.S. media organization to carry the Laghman story.

Not content to rely solely on eyewitness accounts, droves of journalists have gone through the Khyber Pass to report on the conflict. "There is no shortage of Western journalists working in Afghanistan," says Karen McKay, Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based Committee for a Free Afghanistan. "The problem is that Afghanistan just doesn't have a high editorial priority in our news media."

Should the Afghan struggle receive higher priority in U.S. media coverage? Consider the following fact: Of the original pre-invasion Afghan population of 15 million, only 8 million still live within their country. The rest have either fled over the borders to Iran and Pakistan or have been exterminated through Soviet chemical warfare attacks, scorched-earth tactics which have resulted in widespread famine, indiscriminate carpet bombing, and mass executions. One out of every two refugees in the world today is an Afghan; infant mortality caused by malnutrition reached an appalling 85 percent last winter.

BY FAILING TO PUBLICIZE these horrors our news media play right into the hands of the Soviet government. The men in the Kremlin have every interest in keeping their gross violations of international law hidden behind a veil of public complacency. It should be kept in mind that the international news media failed to publicize reports of Nazi genocide despite overwhelming evidence as early as 1942. Only after the defeat of the Third Reich did the world's collective conscience gather over the dead and ask, "Why wasn't this prevented?"

Perhaps even more dangerous than complacent media leaders are the numerous liberal apologists who attempt to deceive the American people with excuses for Soviet atrocities. The many voices, especially since the Geneva summit, which swear that the Soviets have a sincere desire to settle the Afghanistan issue through peaceful means are engaging in wishful thinking, or conscious deception, or both. These same voices probably hailed Moscow's promised peaceful solutions for Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Soviet outrages in these countries look like Cub Scout outings compared to their current actions in Afghanistan. It would be hopelessly naive to believe that the present leadership in Moscow has any intention of ceasing the bloodshed until political "peace" is established on their own terms.

The Russian people cannot be expected to put real pressure on their government in this matter. They, unlike American citizens during the Vietnam era, are kept in almost total darkness concerning the war in Afghanistan. In several instances, the Soviets have been known to secretly bury their dead in mass graves rather than send them home to grieving families. Last year a popular Radio Moscow announcer who publicly criticized Soviet policy in Afghanistan disappeared from public view overnight. If world public opinion is going to influence Moscow's foreign policy, as it did ours in Vietnam, it will have to be generated by the Western press.

Whether or not Afghanistan joins the "media chic" remains an issue for speculation. One thing is certain, however: What we don't hear about the Afghan struggle today will take up much space in tomorrow's history books. Perhaps, like some perpetually belated Greek chorus, the public will once again ask, "Why wasn't this prevented?"