No Such Liberal Conspiracy in the Media
This post is actually in response to a post I received on my myspace account.
It’s really not wise to propose a conspiracy of a liberal bias in the media and then rail against conspiracy theories. 1) If you can recall how vicious the media attacked Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, it could be perceived as a conservative media bashing a liberal. 2) If you look at the way the media has attacked Bush on his irresponsible handling of the Iraq war, it could be viewed as a liberal media bashing a conservative.
However, medium life consists of one thing only, sensationalism. It’s what pays the bills. It’s what hooks the audience. If indeed you are arguing there is a liberal or conservative bias in the media, you’d only partially be right. There is bias in the media, period. To not have bias in the media is to say that objectivism is real. Show me proof that one can totally be void of feelings toward a subject and truly present both sides. You can’t. Objectivism is as unlikely a fact as is Elvis being alive and residing on the planet Venus.
Everyone brings there own bias to the media storefront. Everyone! Why do journalists only cover certain topics? Why do they not cover others? Why not cover them all? In fact, people on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are political pundits spouting off their own opinions, conservative and liberal alike. They are not journalists! Furthermore, claiming that Fox is more accurate in presenting the news than CNN, or vise versa, is like claiming that the stories of Bat Boy in the National Enquirer are factual.
As many facts as you can spout off supporting the war in Iraq, I can easily spout off a dozen more opposing the war. Not to undermine efforts in Iraq, but to expose my own reality of the situation in the Middle East. My bias!
With that said, I would like to remind everyone of the justifications Bush used to go to war in Iraq, a war with which 75% of Americans objected (AP 2002). In his State of the Union address, Bush argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that the international community could not support, even after countless investigative efforts by the U.N. Second, Bush claimed that Iraq was actively seeking enriched Uranium from Niger for the production of nuclear weapons, a claim that was shown false, even by the CIA before Bush made his speech (Joseph Wilson’s “What I didn’t Find in Africa”). Thus, Bush lied to the American people. I’m not making this up to undermine efforts in Iraq, or to spout off my liberal opinions. Neither is this my reality of the war. This is the fact. Now here comes my bias. I want to know, why was Bush so eager to go to war with Iraq that he would go so far as to lie to the American people? Is it wrong to ask this question? Being liberal, does that invalidate my question? In addition, does it make me unpatriotic to do what every American should do and hold Bush accountable for every single decision he makes, including lying to the American people?
Since the State of the Union Address, Bush has changed his reasons for going to war too many times. Once it was because Iraq was linked to Al Queda, since proven false. Once it was to remove an evil dictator from power and liberate Iraq. Now it’s to democratize the Middle East and bring stability to the region, all noble causes. However, you cannot claim to go to war based on one cause and then change your cause half way through the conflict. There is a credibility issue that the whole world takes into account. It’s like the boy who cries wolf. Sooner or later, no one is going to take you very seriously. Furthermore, Bush’s premises for going to war in Iraq justify world powers like Russia and China, should they ever foresee a threat. I guess it would be okay for China to invade Taiwan because it foresees American influence as a threat to its nation. Or, it would be okay for Russia to war with America because America has weapons of mass destruction, weapons we have used on innocent people. Is this an absurd suggestion? Absolutely! Nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt asking the question, nor is it unpatriotic or liberal. On the other hand, it is extremely patriotic to ask tough question and hold our president accountable. It is truly American to ask our political leaders to own up to their mistakes. Maybe we all need a history lesson, but politicians were once literally and publically tarred and feathered when they didn’t.
It’s really not wise to propose a conspiracy of a liberal bias in the media and then rail against conspiracy theories. 1) If you can recall how vicious the media attacked Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, it could be perceived as a conservative media bashing a liberal. 2) If you look at the way the media has attacked Bush on his irresponsible handling of the Iraq war, it could be viewed as a liberal media bashing a conservative.
However, medium life consists of one thing only, sensationalism. It’s what pays the bills. It’s what hooks the audience. If indeed you are arguing there is a liberal or conservative bias in the media, you’d only partially be right. There is bias in the media, period. To not have bias in the media is to say that objectivism is real. Show me proof that one can totally be void of feelings toward a subject and truly present both sides. You can’t. Objectivism is as unlikely a fact as is Elvis being alive and residing on the planet Venus.
Everyone brings there own bias to the media storefront. Everyone! Why do journalists only cover certain topics? Why do they not cover others? Why not cover them all? In fact, people on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are political pundits spouting off their own opinions, conservative and liberal alike. They are not journalists! Furthermore, claiming that Fox is more accurate in presenting the news than CNN, or vise versa, is like claiming that the stories of Bat Boy in the National Enquirer are factual.
As many facts as you can spout off supporting the war in Iraq, I can easily spout off a dozen more opposing the war. Not to undermine efforts in Iraq, but to expose my own reality of the situation in the Middle East. My bias!
With that said, I would like to remind everyone of the justifications Bush used to go to war in Iraq, a war with which 75% of Americans objected (AP 2002). In his State of the Union address, Bush argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that the international community could not support, even after countless investigative efforts by the U.N. Second, Bush claimed that Iraq was actively seeking enriched Uranium from Niger for the production of nuclear weapons, a claim that was shown false, even by the CIA before Bush made his speech (Joseph Wilson’s “What I didn’t Find in Africa”). Thus, Bush lied to the American people. I’m not making this up to undermine efforts in Iraq, or to spout off my liberal opinions. Neither is this my reality of the war. This is the fact. Now here comes my bias. I want to know, why was Bush so eager to go to war with Iraq that he would go so far as to lie to the American people? Is it wrong to ask this question? Being liberal, does that invalidate my question? In addition, does it make me unpatriotic to do what every American should do and hold Bush accountable for every single decision he makes, including lying to the American people?
Since the State of the Union Address, Bush has changed his reasons for going to war too many times. Once it was because Iraq was linked to Al Queda, since proven false. Once it was to remove an evil dictator from power and liberate Iraq. Now it’s to democratize the Middle East and bring stability to the region, all noble causes. However, you cannot claim to go to war based on one cause and then change your cause half way through the conflict. There is a credibility issue that the whole world takes into account. It’s like the boy who cries wolf. Sooner or later, no one is going to take you very seriously. Furthermore, Bush’s premises for going to war in Iraq justify world powers like Russia and China, should they ever foresee a threat. I guess it would be okay for China to invade Taiwan because it foresees American influence as a threat to its nation. Or, it would be okay for Russia to war with America because America has weapons of mass destruction, weapons we have used on innocent people. Is this an absurd suggestion? Absolutely! Nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt asking the question, nor is it unpatriotic or liberal. On the other hand, it is extremely patriotic to ask tough question and hold our president accountable. It is truly American to ask our political leaders to own up to their mistakes. Maybe we all need a history lesson, but politicians were once literally and publically tarred and feathered when they didn’t.
posted by Caleab at 8:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home