... and the manufacturing of news. Over at Q&O Blog, Bruce McQuain takes note of an AP reporter contorting the speech of Secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield, in what can only be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent both content and meaning (HT: Hugh Hewitt):
In example one, it is apparent, at least to me, that Rumsfeld wasn't at all accusing anyone of anything. He was instead saying these questions need to be asked and answered by everyone, to include those who disagree with the administration. But there isn't an accusation against anyone within that portion of his speech.
Example two shows no "accusation" with the phrase "moral and intellectual confusion." In fact he's talking about our military when he uses the phrase. "Moral confusion" is also found in the speech where he discussed the history leading up to WWII. However it is never addressed to the administration's critics.
Additionally, "courage" is found one time in the speech and it is addressing something completely different ("And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.". Nowhere is anyone "accused" of "lacking the courage to fight back."
And there's more. Bruce further notes how other news agencies picked up the AP report and ran it today, unedited, and uncorroborated. Might we ask, how reliable are the portions of news that are left unchecked? If AP and Reuters manufactured tires, I dare say their names would be far more notorious than Bridgestone/Firestone.
2 comments:
I would say, then, that the basic meme and narrative that the press is attempting (and apparently succeeding) to propegate is that the Bush administration specifically and Republicans in general consider political victory against those who disagree with them to be their only motivation. It *can't possibly* be that Republicans are deep thinkers, philosophers, historians, anthropologists, etc. that are attempting to engage in debate on an intellectually meaningful level.
Perhaps somebody that places a high value on consolidation of power and enforcement of ideology feels that there can be no motivation in politics other than doing whatever is necessary to bring about such consolidation and enforcement. Leftists can't stand to be out of power because it's the only way they can control anybody's behavior. It's only natural that they would believe the same thing about their political adversaries. Do they understand that the essence of the United States Constitution is in LIMITING the power of government upon individual citizens?
As I said before, Facts and fears be damned, its an Orwelian preview of what will come with them in charge of the information society. Real threats will be ignored, while politically expedient enemies invented as means to their ends. It is the way the fringe Left thinks, because it is what the fringe Left would do given the slightest opportunity?
Post a Comment