A recent New York Times article titled "Iran Secretly Sending Drones and Supplies Into Iraq, U.S. Officials Say" by Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt outlines Iranian aid being provided to the Iraqi government in their fight against the Sunni Militants occupying the north western regions of Iraq. Iran has sent a few dozen paramilitary officers to advise Iraqi military commanders as well as to help mobilize over 2000 Shiite troops located in southern Iraq. Iranian transport planes have been making multiple fights a day to Baghdad each loaded with at least 70 tons of military arms and supplies per trip. The Iranian military has even stationed a small fleet of surveillance drones at Rasheed Air Base in Baghdad. Although large numbers of Iranian troops have not yet been sent into Iraq, upwards of 10 division of Iranian troops and paramilitary commandos have be amassed along the Iran-Iraq border. While Iran may suggest these troop are positioned for the security of Iran, it is an obvious contingency force should Baghdad become imperiled.
The reasons for Iran supporting the Iraqi government are relatively clear, Iran is the seat of power of the Shiite world; to allow the Shiite controlled Iraqi government to fall is in contrary to Iran's interests. More importantly to Shiites in general however is the security of their holy shrines located mostly in southern Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, had made their intention clear to desecrate if not entirely decimate these holy sites to strike a blow to all of the Shiite population across the Middle East. While the Iraqi military claims to have these sites under heavy guard on high alert, it is apparent that the Iranians do not have the utmost faith in the Iraqi military's capabilities based on their inability to push back the tide of insurgency thus far. Should the need arise for armed intervention in either Baghdad or at any of these holy shrines, the Iranian military will likely move in to secure them with or perhaps even without the invitation of the government in Baghdad.
Another significant reason for Iran to support the Iraqi government is the national security of Iran itself. Should Baghdad fall under the control of the Sunni sect, it would put Iran in a dangerous position. Only a few decades ago Iran and Iraq fought a long bloody war fueled by this very sectarian rift. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 in attempts to exploit chaos caused by the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. Iranian forces repelled the Iraqi invasion within two years and then spent the next six years on the offensive, fighting with classical trench warfare within Iraq. With neither side emerging as a victor, the war ended on a fragile ceasefire brokered by the United Nations in 1988. For Iran to allow Iraq to once again become a Sunni controlled state it would set the stage for another bloody war between the two nations which would surely begin over control of the Shiite holy shrines presently located within Iraq. Iran would likely rather forcefully annex the southern Shiite dominated regions of Iraq then allow these holy sites to be defiled by Sunni militants.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Birds of a Feather
A recent New York Times article titled "Iran Secretly Sending Drones and Supplies Into Iraq, U.S. Officials Say" by
Futile Efforts
A Recent New York Times article "Redrawn Lines Seen as No Cure in Iraq Conflict" by Robert F. Worth discusses the likely unsustainable outcome of sectarian divisions within Iraq and Syria. As The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, continues to gear up for more fighting with the Shite forces in Iraq there are growing tensions within each sect that threaten to erupt into bloodshed behind the battlefronts. There have already been claims of gun battles between different factions among the militants holding onto to control on the besieged city of Mosul. Within the Shiite forces there are also tensions between factions; the Mahdi Army commander has refused to fight under the banner of the Iraqi army which is a rift that has caused bloodshed in the past. The one faction pleased to see the infighting is the Kurds.
The violent insurgency of The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has weakened Baghdad's control on the country to an extent that may finally allow the formal succession of Iraqi Kurdistan. The main obstacle preventing a sovereign Kurdistan in the past had be the Shiite control of Kirkuk, an oil rich city in northern Iraq. With Baghdad's decreased influence in northern Iraq, Kurdish forces have seized control of Kirkuk with little resistance. The Kurdish president has since stated that there will be no withdraw of Kurdish forces from the Kirkuk, that they have no intention of relinquishing control of the city back to the Iraqi government. In the opinion of the Kurds, Kurdistan's succession has been formalized de facto.
While even the United States government seems all too complacent with the current separation of Iraq, analysts suggest it will not solve the social and political issues in the region. Many analysts of Iraq and Syria have stated that the regions could be divided multiple times, the sectarian power struggles would still commence. The issue lies with how power is utilized within these regions. Given the opportunity the powers that be within the regions, regardless of religious or political affiliation, will act to instill control of the region for their sect while persecuting the rival groups. This cycle had repeated in the Middle East for centuries, there is no signs it will stop with the de-evolution of a few national borders back to the regional provinces of old. ISIS has denounced the border between Syria and Iraq as colonialist imperial partitions that they do not recognize. While not entirely far from the truth, it seems these borders are only in name sake now as a line in the sand. Draw the lines on the map where you will, these sect will continue to fight over them regardless of their geographic position.
The violent insurgency of The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has weakened Baghdad's control on the country to an extent that may finally allow the formal succession of Iraqi Kurdistan. The main obstacle preventing a sovereign Kurdistan in the past had be the Shiite control of Kirkuk, an oil rich city in northern Iraq. With Baghdad's decreased influence in northern Iraq, Kurdish forces have seized control of Kirkuk with little resistance. The Kurdish president has since stated that there will be no withdraw of Kurdish forces from the Kirkuk, that they have no intention of relinquishing control of the city back to the Iraqi government. In the opinion of the Kurds, Kurdistan's succession has been formalized de facto.
While even the United States government seems all too complacent with the current separation of Iraq, analysts suggest it will not solve the social and political issues in the region. Many analysts of Iraq and Syria have stated that the regions could be divided multiple times, the sectarian power struggles would still commence. The issue lies with how power is utilized within these regions. Given the opportunity the powers that be within the regions, regardless of religious or political affiliation, will act to instill control of the region for their sect while persecuting the rival groups. This cycle had repeated in the Middle East for centuries, there is no signs it will stop with the de-evolution of a few national borders back to the regional provinces of old. ISIS has denounced the border between Syria and Iraq as colonialist imperial partitions that they do not recognize. While not entirely far from the truth, it seems these borders are only in name sake now as a line in the sand. Draw the lines on the map where you will, these sect will continue to fight over them regardless of their geographic position.
Sectarian Division
A recent New York Times article "Shiite Leader in Iraq Urges Quick Decision on New Government" by
Thursday, June 26, 2014
News With a Side of Bias
In chapter twelve of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway there is an in depth examination of biases in news media. The authors put forth that there are three main types of bias present in news media today. These three types of bias are partisan bias, informational bias, and affective bias. While partisan bias is the form of media bias that most Americans think of when discussing this subject, research shows that affective bias and informational bias have a greater negative effect on the public and the democratic process. Most audiences can perceive partisan bias in the news; they even expect it to a certain extent making it far less effective in terms of altering the public opinion.
Informational bias is mainly a byproduct of the news media's desire to present material that they know will boost rating rather than material that will better serve the public interest. When a news organization chooses to publish muckraking political news rather than a more informative variety of political news, this is an example of informational bias. While it seems counterintuitive that the news media would actively choose to be informational bias, to operate on this framework make news easy and cheap to present and also attracts larger audiences. It becomes in the best interest of the news organization to be informational biased. Until the public shows the news media that this framework is unacceptable, they will continue to operate this way. Unfortunately, it is hardwired into the human condition that negative information is more appealing than positive information; it is a winning formula that the news media will continue to embrace.
Affective bias is perhaps more damaging to the democratic process than either of the other two major types of bias. Affective bias in represented in the content presented as well as the emotional tone in which it is presented in political news today. Affective bias can included incivility, negativity, or cynicism on the part of the presenting media. The damaging aspect of affective bias on the democratic process is it causes the public to harbor disdain for politicians and leaders. Left unchecked affective bias can add to distrust in government and the political process in general leading to low political engagement by the public. Our political leaders do not need any help to add to the public disdain, they do the job well enough on their own.
Informational bias is mainly a byproduct of the news media's desire to present material that they know will boost rating rather than material that will better serve the public interest. When a news organization chooses to publish muckraking political news rather than a more informative variety of political news, this is an example of informational bias. While it seems counterintuitive that the news media would actively choose to be informational bias, to operate on this framework make news easy and cheap to present and also attracts larger audiences. It becomes in the best interest of the news organization to be informational biased. Until the public shows the news media that this framework is unacceptable, they will continue to operate this way. Unfortunately, it is hardwired into the human condition that negative information is more appealing than positive information; it is a winning formula that the news media will continue to embrace.
Affective bias is perhaps more damaging to the democratic process than either of the other two major types of bias. Affective bias in represented in the content presented as well as the emotional tone in which it is presented in political news today. Affective bias can included incivility, negativity, or cynicism on the part of the presenting media. The damaging aspect of affective bias on the democratic process is it causes the public to harbor disdain for politicians and leaders. Left unchecked affective bias can add to distrust in government and the political process in general leading to low political engagement by the public. Our political leaders do not need any help to add to the public disdain, they do the job well enough on their own.
A Cycle Renewed
In a recent New York Times Article "As Sunnis Die In Iraq, A Cycle Is Restarting" By Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland there is an account of the most recent skirmishes and killings in the violent turmoil in Iraq. With militant group known as The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS pressing further south through Iraq sectarian violence in Iraq is ramping up again. ISIS along with other Sunni militant groups of similar alignment laid siege to Baquba, a city only 44 mile from Baghdad. The militants took control of portions of the city before being repelled by Shiite militia after a three hour gun battle. The fact that the militants are willing to operate with such proximity to the capital city of Baghdad does not bode well for the Shiite government attempting to regain control of the country.
The people killed during the skirmish where not the only victims of the violence in Baquba however. During the battle militant forces attacked a local police station, the police officers inside responded by executing the 44 Sunni prisoners being held within the police station. The Sunni prisoners we reportedly being held for interrogation on suspicion of terrorism. The liberation of these men may have been the motive to attack the police station if not the city as well. The Shiite militia claims the Sunni Prisoners were mainly killed by grenades and mortar fire by the militant fighters. However, a source within the morgue says that most of the prisoners were killed by gunfire at close range. This paints a dark picture of bloody reprisal for the militant attacks, or perhaps the Shiite police officers were not interested in allowing the prisoners the opportunity of joining ranks with the militants.
Beyond the bloody skirmishes, people are dying in other parts of the country. 4 unidentified bodies were found in a Baghdad community; they had been tortured and shot repeatedly. It is suspected they were Sunni men killed in retaliation of a suicide bombing that killed 14 in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. As the violence in Iraq continues over control of the nation, there will certainly be more sectarian violence located away from the battlefield. Hopefully this wave of violence will not reach the staggering proportions of 2006 and 2007 when as many as 80 bodies a day were found in Baghdad communities. Unfortunately, hope is a luxury that Iraqis can ill afford in the current volatile climate.
The people killed during the skirmish where not the only victims of the violence in Baquba however. During the battle militant forces attacked a local police station, the police officers inside responded by executing the 44 Sunni prisoners being held within the police station. The Sunni prisoners we reportedly being held for interrogation on suspicion of terrorism. The liberation of these men may have been the motive to attack the police station if not the city as well. The Shiite militia claims the Sunni Prisoners were mainly killed by grenades and mortar fire by the militant fighters. However, a source within the morgue says that most of the prisoners were killed by gunfire at close range. This paints a dark picture of bloody reprisal for the militant attacks, or perhaps the Shiite police officers were not interested in allowing the prisoners the opportunity of joining ranks with the militants.
Beyond the bloody skirmishes, people are dying in other parts of the country. 4 unidentified bodies were found in a Baghdad community; they had been tortured and shot repeatedly. It is suspected they were Sunni men killed in retaliation of a suicide bombing that killed 14 in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. As the violence in Iraq continues over control of the nation, there will certainly be more sectarian violence located away from the battlefield. Hopefully this wave of violence will not reach the staggering proportions of 2006 and 2007 when as many as 80 bodies a day were found in Baghdad communities. Unfortunately, hope is a luxury that Iraqis can ill afford in the current volatile climate.
Consolidation from the Archives
A New York Times article titled "Ideas & Trends; New Tactics in Ted Turner's Bid For CBS" By Richard Levine and Walter Goodman which was published on April 7, 1985 reports on Ted Turner's attempt to acquire CBS in 1985. Though Mr. Turner failed to add CBS to his portfolio of broadcasting networks, he went on to buy or establish a number of other television networks to form a giant entertainment firm that is a still a controlling influence on network television today. This news article from the New York Times archives shows that consolidation of media organization is not a new practice. Consolidation has been a driving force shaping the landscape of media in America of a long time, well before this specific acquisition attempt.
Mr. Turner at the time had taken numerous steps in his attempt for acquire CBS. He had reported met with a handful of New York investment firms in attempts to secure financing including Shearson Lehman Brothers. Shearson Lehman Brothers reportedly turned him down at first but then reversed their position possibly based in a decision by their parent company American Express to provided financing themselves. Mr. Turner also approached major CBS shareholders with propositions to get on board with the takeout in attempts to secure a controlling interest. In an attempt to control its own fate, CBS started talks with General Electric about a possible merger between the two firms.
This is just one event in a long history of media consolidation. Just like fish in the sea, small media firms tend to get gobbled up by larger ones. As the interests of the media are forcefully aligned with the interests of their parent companies, the views of the media organization become biased, slanted. As the current landscape of who owns who and where is the funding coming from changes, so does the reliability of the news media. If news organizations must be concerned with the agenda of their parent company they may lose sight of their purpose, the unbiased reporting of the news.
Mr. Turner at the time had taken numerous steps in his attempt for acquire CBS. He had reported met with a handful of New York investment firms in attempts to secure financing including Shearson Lehman Brothers. Shearson Lehman Brothers reportedly turned him down at first but then reversed their position possibly based in a decision by their parent company American Express to provided financing themselves. Mr. Turner also approached major CBS shareholders with propositions to get on board with the takeout in attempts to secure a controlling interest. In an attempt to control its own fate, CBS started talks with General Electric about a possible merger between the two firms.
This is just one event in a long history of media consolidation. Just like fish in the sea, small media firms tend to get gobbled up by larger ones. As the interests of the media are forcefully aligned with the interests of their parent companies, the views of the media organization become biased, slanted. As the current landscape of who owns who and where is the funding coming from changes, so does the reliability of the news media. If news organizations must be concerned with the agenda of their parent company they may lose sight of their purpose, the unbiased reporting of the news.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Balancing on the Edge, Editorial
A recent New York Times Editorial titled "A Balancing Act on Iraq" supports President Obama's stance on the militant insurgency sweeping across Iraq. The main group pressing across Iraq from the north calls themselves The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS. These Islamic militants are also fighting a war in Syria over control of regions within that state. The group is mainly of Sunni background which desires to overthrow the Shiite controlled Iraqi government. These two groups have been fighting for centuries; this is just the most recent skirmish. However, to allow Iraq to fall deeper into sectarian violence would be a serious folly on the part of the American government.
This editorial speaks to the fact that Mr. Obama is taking the correct approach to this situation. Engaging the region's states to take an active role in quelling the violent upheaval of the government controlling Iraq is the best course of action. Iran, which is also controlled by a mainly Shiite government, has a significant interest in maintaining Shiite control in Iraq regardless of how much Iran wants to downplay this fact. Diplomats from both Iran and the United States meet in Vienna this week to discuss possible cooperative actions. Should Iraq fall into Sunni control, it would represent a significant threat to the security of Iran. Hopefully the Obama administration does not lose sight of this fact when discussing what cooperative actions will be considered and what Iran will do to secure U. S. involvement. An illustration of the parallelism between supporting Iraq's Shiite government and securing Iran's national security is paramount during these discussions to ensure Iran is not bargained into cooperation with reprieve from economic sanctions or other bargaining chips.
Is it really not in the United States' interest to have a Sunni state with such proximity to Iran? The fighting that would ensue would surely only weaken Iran as well as Iraq. However, as much as an even more weakened Iran might be appealing to the U. S. and more so Israel, to destabilize the region more would be even more perilous to Israel and by association the United States. Mr. Obama has called on the Iraqi government to form a diverse representative government of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as a condition of United States military action in the region. More likely than U. S. troops on the ground will be tactical drone attacks on the insurgent militants to support Iraqi armed force in retaking northern regions of the country which are under the control of ISIS. Unfortunately, there is a certain aspect of posturing to be considered in the United States' reaction to ISIS taking control of parts of Iraq. This situation cannot be allowed to show America as weak on the international stage. After the long military campaign in Iraq, for a militant insurgency to sweep control of the nation in a short period of time and hold it would not speak to the might of the American military and would only illustrate the massive mess we've made of the region.
This editorial speaks to the fact that Mr. Obama is taking the correct approach to this situation. Engaging the region's states to take an active role in quelling the violent upheaval of the government controlling Iraq is the best course of action. Iran, which is also controlled by a mainly Shiite government, has a significant interest in maintaining Shiite control in Iraq regardless of how much Iran wants to downplay this fact. Diplomats from both Iran and the United States meet in Vienna this week to discuss possible cooperative actions. Should Iraq fall into Sunni control, it would represent a significant threat to the security of Iran. Hopefully the Obama administration does not lose sight of this fact when discussing what cooperative actions will be considered and what Iran will do to secure U. S. involvement. An illustration of the parallelism between supporting Iraq's Shiite government and securing Iran's national security is paramount during these discussions to ensure Iran is not bargained into cooperation with reprieve from economic sanctions or other bargaining chips.
Is it really not in the United States' interest to have a Sunni state with such proximity to Iran? The fighting that would ensue would surely only weaken Iran as well as Iraq. However, as much as an even more weakened Iran might be appealing to the U. S. and more so Israel, to destabilize the region more would be even more perilous to Israel and by association the United States. Mr. Obama has called on the Iraqi government to form a diverse representative government of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as a condition of United States military action in the region. More likely than U. S. troops on the ground will be tactical drone attacks on the insurgent militants to support Iraqi armed force in retaking northern regions of the country which are under the control of ISIS. Unfortunately, there is a certain aspect of posturing to be considered in the United States' reaction to ISIS taking control of parts of Iraq. This situation cannot be allowed to show America as weak on the international stage. After the long military campaign in Iraq, for a militant insurgency to sweep control of the nation in a short period of time and hold it would not speak to the might of the American military and would only illustrate the massive mess we've made of the region.
Underrepresented
In chapter seven of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway there is an in depth examination of the crisis that is the current state of traditional news reporting in America today. While national news is still covered in adequate frequency and scope, state and local level news has seen a significant downscaling. To some extent even local news gets more representation by local news media than state level political news. State level political news is scarcely covered recently beyond the major political scandals and changing of the guard news. If a person wants to read about current political news at the state level they are actually required to seek it out from news media outlets centrally local in state capitals and the surrounding areas.
The reasons for this are mainly monetary, many news media organization are unwilling to spend the money needed to cover state level politics beyond major stories known of in advance. However, the motive for allocating funding away from state level politics is not based solely in greed. It is rooted in the fact that traditional in print news media has been in constant decline in circulation over the past decade. As many Americans turn to the internet for their news these days, many in print news publications are suffering from underfunding as a result of poor circulation. While it is true that these news organizations receive significantly more revenue from advertising then they do from sales of the publication itself. Many companies are rethinking where to spend their advertising dollars, if more Americans are reading news on the internet then that is where more eyes will see their advertising.
With the significantly decreased budgets that news organizations find themselves working within, there are some hard choices that must be made. Reporting personal is usually decreased first, sending many reporters with less experience and name recognition packing. Many of these less experienced reporters would be assigned to less noteworthy state level politics causing underrepresentation of this material. Also, with their less robust financing and reporting personal many larger news organizations concentrate their efforts on national news deciding not the spend money reporting at the state level. Whatever the reasoning beyond the lack of state political coverage, it is a bane on the democratic process that is not going to get better overtime.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
It Sells Papers
In chapter six of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway there is a wide analysis of the direct involvement in politics and government affairs by journalists. During this analysis the authors come to the conclusion that muckraking journalism, the practice of gathering political dirt and muck to expose it to the public, is far less influential on policy shaping and political routine than many believe. Graber and Dunaway assert that little political change occurs in the wake of these exposures of corruption and manipulation beyond the immediate legal or political repercussions. It is suggested that far more reform is brought about by other types of media participation.
When political figures want to progress their agenda the media can serve as a conduit to further their views. By providing select information to the news media, a politician can get the public engaged in their agenda. This is one way the media can be a constructive force in political reform, if the given agenda is in the interest of the public. This practice can be a double-edge blade however, politicians have been known to use this technique to manipulate less astute or otherwise questionable journalists into progressing political agendas that are perhaps in the interest of the few rather than the many. Another potentially productive influence of journalists in political reform is using acquired information to intimidate or otherwise extort politicians into yielding to political reform. By threatening the exposure of sensitive information of a scandalous nature to the public, journalists can possibly negotiate political reform that may be otherwise resisted. Though this practice may seem dubious, sometimes the ends can justify the means.
One may ask if the more abundant muckraking journalism yields less fruitful results in terms of political reform why is it so prevalent. The answer may lie in the human condition; negative stories have a way of gaining more traction then positive ones. It is all but guaranteed that if there is a news story of a plane crash or killing spree presented next to one about curing childhood disease or providing shelter to homeless veterans, the negative story will be observed first 80 percent of the time. Blood and social discourse boost ratings; it is a sad but unfortunately true aspect of society. Since the first man picked up a stick and beat the second man to death with it; people want to hear about it. Even if this practice does not positively progress our culture or political system, journalists will continue to expose government fecal substance in a measurable effort to increase circulation.
When political figures want to progress their agenda the media can serve as a conduit to further their views. By providing select information to the news media, a politician can get the public engaged in their agenda. This is one way the media can be a constructive force in political reform, if the given agenda is in the interest of the public. This practice can be a double-edge blade however, politicians have been known to use this technique to manipulate less astute or otherwise questionable journalists into progressing political agendas that are perhaps in the interest of the few rather than the many. Another potentially productive influence of journalists in political reform is using acquired information to intimidate or otherwise extort politicians into yielding to political reform. By threatening the exposure of sensitive information of a scandalous nature to the public, journalists can possibly negotiate political reform that may be otherwise resisted. Though this practice may seem dubious, sometimes the ends can justify the means.
One may ask if the more abundant muckraking journalism yields less fruitful results in terms of political reform why is it so prevalent. The answer may lie in the human condition; negative stories have a way of gaining more traction then positive ones. It is all but guaranteed that if there is a news story of a plane crash or killing spree presented next to one about curing childhood disease or providing shelter to homeless veterans, the negative story will be observed first 80 percent of the time. Blood and social discourse boost ratings; it is a sad but unfortunately true aspect of society. Since the first man picked up a stick and beat the second man to death with it; people want to hear about it. Even if this practice does not positively progress our culture or political system, journalists will continue to expose government fecal substance in a measurable effort to increase circulation.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Under Review, NYT eXaminer piece
The NYTimes eXaminer, an online publisher of critiques of the news reporting done by the New York Times, recently published a piece by their columnist Murray Polner entitled "The Great Book Review War: Kinsley vs. Greenwald, Sullivan and of course Snowden". The article chronicles a fierce dispute over a recent questionable review in the New York Times Sunday Book Review by Michael Kinsley of Glen Greenwald's book "No Place to Hide" about Edward Snowden's leak of numerous NSA documents. In his review, Kinsley had few kind words to say about Greenwald suggesting he, at least in the context of his book, "seems like a self-righteous sourpuss, convinced that every issue is 'straightforward'" among other negative assertions. Kinsley continued by making more speculative claims as to the way Glen Greenwald views himself in his own mind, one might conclude that Kinsley must be very intimate with Greenwald's thoughts but that would only be speculation.
The book review became more controversial when Kinsley diverted his attention from Greenwald's book to the debate over which is more important, the government's right to keep secrets or the public's right to be informed. Mr. Kinsley rhetorically asks "the question is who decides" in reference to the debate of which government classified documents or secrets should be kept classified and which really should be exposed to the public. Answering his own question, Kinsley asserts "That decision must ultimately be made by the government". This seems to be saying that the powers that be are obviously more astute then the masses, let them decided what information is fit to be passed on to the public. To call this view naïve would be a generosity not afforded to Mr. Greenwald, this statement is plainly ignorant.
Let us imagine a nation in which only the facts approved by the government are provided to the masses. A fictional nation where the rank and file absorbed only approved information and made no inquires as to the validity of the sources, a land in which government control of literature and media was absolute and unchallenged due to strict persecution. Welcome to China, check your civil liberties at the door and wait to be fitted for your self-expression gag. Let us remember how the government in such a nation reacts to demands for free press and transparency, even the facts about how many people the Chinese government killed in Tiananmen Square are censored. Some people might label this view a bit melodramatic, but even the mightiest wave begins with but a ripple.
The book review became more controversial when Kinsley diverted his attention from Greenwald's book to the debate over which is more important, the government's right to keep secrets or the public's right to be informed. Mr. Kinsley rhetorically asks "the question is who decides" in reference to the debate of which government classified documents or secrets should be kept classified and which really should be exposed to the public. Answering his own question, Kinsley asserts "That decision must ultimately be made by the government". This seems to be saying that the powers that be are obviously more astute then the masses, let them decided what information is fit to be passed on to the public. To call this view naïve would be a generosity not afforded to Mr. Greenwald, this statement is plainly ignorant.
Let us imagine a nation in which only the facts approved by the government are provided to the masses. A fictional nation where the rank and file absorbed only approved information and made no inquires as to the validity of the sources, a land in which government control of literature and media was absolute and unchallenged due to strict persecution. Welcome to China, check your civil liberties at the door and wait to be fitted for your self-expression gag. Let us remember how the government in such a nation reacts to demands for free press and transparency, even the facts about how many people the Chinese government killed in Tiananmen Square are censored. Some people might label this view a bit melodramatic, but even the mightiest wave begins with but a ripple.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Mixed Sentiment, Comments Piece
Recently the New York Times published "Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Times Reporter Over Refusal to Identify Source" by Adam Liptak, an article chronicling the recent developments in James Risen's fight to maintain the confidentiality of a source in the face of possible imprisonment for contempt of court. James Risen cited information from a confidential source as his source of information about Operation Merlin which he described in a chapter in his 2006 book "State of War". Operation Merlin was a CIA operation to sabotage Iran's nuclear program by covertly supplying Iran with faulty schematics via a Russian scientist. Mr. Risen has been ordered to testify as to the identity of the source of information used in his book to confirm suspicions that the source was Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official.
Perhaps more interesting than the story itself is the large variety of opinions provided by readers in the comments section of the digital copy of the article published on the Times website nytimes.com. It would seem a majority of the comments are in support of Mr. Risen or potentially more in support of the ideal for which he fights; freedom of the press. Many people ardently believe in this principle. That for a free press in a democratic society to accurately inform the citizenry it must have the ability to protect sources of information from being prosecuted, persecuted, even attacked over their actions in providing controversial or classified information to the news media and thereby the public. Given the current administration's record for persecution of whistleblowers and investigative journalists, the need to protect information sources has never been more prudent. How can we have a responsibly informed citizenry when the consequences of providing controversial information are so high, imprisonment on espionage charges or more gruesome ends.
However, some people do not feel the same as Mr. Risen on this topic. There seems to be a significant minority trending with the mindset to disagree with him. They feel that 1st Amendment rights do not provided journalist with any extra rights when it comes to protecting others from criminal prosecution. There are some facts to support this opinion. Before being given access to classified information, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden took an oath to not disseminate the information which has been left in there charge. To leak classified government documents is a crime of the highest order, potentially treasonous in some context. These are government secrets that are being stolen and dispersed to whom the source feels appropriate, perhaps in less worthy motive then freedom of information. Certainly there is context to which these actions are a clear threat to national security in the most literal meaning of the term, the laws are clearly justified.
The footing of this case stands upon the crest of a slippery slope. To set the president that a reporter may refuse to testify about the criminal actions of a third party on the merits of sustaining his own journalistic integrity may be dangerous. Where do we draw the line that the dissemination of information overrides the rule of law? However, if we allow our government to control the flow of information to their own ends our cherished democracy will soon resemble a classical oligarchy. To ensure the preservation of a healthy democratic society the citizenry have a responsible to inform themselves. To this end, the press must be free to publish information needed to satisfy this responsibility. To provide the confidence needed to attain this information, reporters must have the ability, the right to protect the identities of their sources. To allow these rights to be stripped away is to allow our democracy to be stripped away in whole.
Perhaps more interesting than the story itself is the large variety of opinions provided by readers in the comments section of the digital copy of the article published on the Times website nytimes.com. It would seem a majority of the comments are in support of Mr. Risen or potentially more in support of the ideal for which he fights; freedom of the press. Many people ardently believe in this principle. That for a free press in a democratic society to accurately inform the citizenry it must have the ability to protect sources of information from being prosecuted, persecuted, even attacked over their actions in providing controversial or classified information to the news media and thereby the public. Given the current administration's record for persecution of whistleblowers and investigative journalists, the need to protect information sources has never been more prudent. How can we have a responsibly informed citizenry when the consequences of providing controversial information are so high, imprisonment on espionage charges or more gruesome ends.
However, some people do not feel the same as Mr. Risen on this topic. There seems to be a significant minority trending with the mindset to disagree with him. They feel that 1st Amendment rights do not provided journalist with any extra rights when it comes to protecting others from criminal prosecution. There are some facts to support this opinion. Before being given access to classified information, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden took an oath to not disseminate the information which has been left in there charge. To leak classified government documents is a crime of the highest order, potentially treasonous in some context. These are government secrets that are being stolen and dispersed to whom the source feels appropriate, perhaps in less worthy motive then freedom of information. Certainly there is context to which these actions are a clear threat to national security in the most literal meaning of the term, the laws are clearly justified.
The footing of this case stands upon the crest of a slippery slope. To set the president that a reporter may refuse to testify about the criminal actions of a third party on the merits of sustaining his own journalistic integrity may be dangerous. Where do we draw the line that the dissemination of information overrides the rule of law? However, if we allow our government to control the flow of information to their own ends our cherished democracy will soon resemble a classical oligarchy. To ensure the preservation of a healthy democratic society the citizenry have a responsible to inform themselves. To this end, the press must be free to publish information needed to satisfy this responsibility. To provide the confidence needed to attain this information, reporters must have the ability, the right to protect the identities of their sources. To allow these rights to be stripped away is to allow our democracy to be stripped away in whole.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Domestic Military
A recent New York Times article "Officer Friendly, in a Tank? War Gear Flows to Local Police" by Matt Apuzzo examines the increasing amount of military grade weaponry and equipment being acquired by American police forces. Due to the ramping down of the wars abroad, the Pentagon has a significant surplus of weaponry and equipment piling up. The military could choose to stockpile these arms in military armories or potentially a more noble approach would be to destroy the surplus arms. However, the Pentagon has another idea in mind on how to reduce their surplus of military arms. Instead of stockpiling or destroying them, the Pentagon can disseminate these arms and equipment to domestic police forces across the nation.
These military arms and equipment being acquired by domestic police forces nationwide range from military grade assault rifles, silencers, and expanded capacity magazines to land-mine resistant troop transports and other armored equipment. Potentially more surprising than the types of equipment and weaponry handed out to state and local police departments is the alarming number of them. Since 2006 domestic police forces have received at least 90,000 military grade assault rifles (both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm), 180,000 oversized magazines (capacities ranging from 30 to 100 rounds), and 45,000 military grade night vision optics (rifle optics among other types of binoculars and goggles). In terms of equipment, at least 850 armored military vehicles and 530 military aircraft have made their way in to municipal garages and hangers across the nation.
This increasing armament of domestic police with military hardware is not necessarily viewed by all as a necessity. There is naturally apprehension by some to arming police officers with tactical gear. Small town municipalities having a "need" for armored military vehicles has raised some local eyebrows in a number of towns nationwide. When a police official in Indiana was asked to justify the need for a newly acquired armor vehicles his response was cryptic to say the least. He justified the need for the armored vehicles as a response to the potential for domestic terror attacks by war veterans returning home with knowledge of I.E.D explosives and tactical combat. If we truly need to be afraid of our own returning veterans then it is a good thing we have a domestic military to protect us. One does not need to be a returning veteran to be offended by the ignorant statements of this police official. It just goes to show that people with official power can do whatever unnecessary actions they deem required by simply invoking people's fear of extremely unlikely and isolated attacks.
These military arms and equipment being acquired by domestic police forces nationwide range from military grade assault rifles, silencers, and expanded capacity magazines to land-mine resistant troop transports and other armored equipment. Potentially more surprising than the types of equipment and weaponry handed out to state and local police departments is the alarming number of them. Since 2006 domestic police forces have received at least 90,000 military grade assault rifles (both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm), 180,000 oversized magazines (capacities ranging from 30 to 100 rounds), and 45,000 military grade night vision optics (rifle optics among other types of binoculars and goggles). In terms of equipment, at least 850 armored military vehicles and 530 military aircraft have made their way in to municipal garages and hangers across the nation.
This increasing armament of domestic police with military hardware is not necessarily viewed by all as a necessity. There is naturally apprehension by some to arming police officers with tactical gear. Small town municipalities having a "need" for armored military vehicles has raised some local eyebrows in a number of towns nationwide. When a police official in Indiana was asked to justify the need for a newly acquired armor vehicles his response was cryptic to say the least. He justified the need for the armored vehicles as a response to the potential for domestic terror attacks by war veterans returning home with knowledge of I.E.D explosives and tactical combat. If we truly need to be afraid of our own returning veterans then it is a good thing we have a domestic military to protect us. One does not need to be a returning veteran to be offended by the ignorant statements of this police official. It just goes to show that people with official power can do whatever unnecessary actions they deem required by simply invoking people's fear of extremely unlikely and isolated attacks.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Illusion of Freedom of the Press
In chapter three of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway, lawful protection for freedom of the press is discussed in great detail. The first Amendment to the Constitution and other legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act intend to provide news media some legal protection allowing them to publish information to the public. Unfortunately, these provisions fall short of allowing the news media to publish political information in the entirety. There is still a large amount of information censored by government that is not publishable by the media. These types of information typically consist of classified state secrets withheld for security reasons, information that may embarrass political officials, or information generated within closed meetings usually of the previous two types. These forms of classified information are usually but not always keep out of the hands of the news media.
It is not uncommon however for classified information to be leaked to the news media. There are a number of situations when the government intentionally provides classified information to the press that it wants publicly presented but for one reason or another but does not desire to release the information through official government venues. Then there are the occasions when potentially damaging classified information is released to the press by private individuals possibly for reasons of conscience. This form of information dissemination is typically illegal and can carry very harsh consequences if the source of information is identified and apprehended. Some high profile examples of this type of classified information leak would be the government documents called the "Pentagon Papers" released by Daniel Ellsberg in the 70s and more recently the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. In both cases the government indicted these whistleblowers on espionage charges among others.
Given the high risks involved in the less legal form of classified information dissemination, a reporter to must protect the confidentiality of their sources if they expect to be trusted in the face of the significant consequences of whistleblowing. However, no legislation involved in providing "freedom of the press" protects a reporter's right to keep a source confidential. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides the right to decline to testify in fear of self-incrimination, there is no legislation however providing the right to decline to testify in fear of source incrimination including the First Amendment. Most cases of such magnitude are heard in federal courts eventually, unfortunately more often than not the courts decide that the reporter does not have the right to refuse to testify and orders them to do so or face imprisonment for contempt of court. This is the legal situation James Risen finds himself in now; he has been order by a U. S. Court of Appeals to testify on the identity of a confidential source used in writing a book. Mr. Risen has stated that he will not divulge the identity of his source even if faced with imprisonment. If the U. S. Supreme Court, who has thus far declined to hear the case, does not reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals; Mr. Risen may be force to prove his resolve and remain in contempt of court. Though the cost of being imprisoned for another person's crime may be high, the principle James Risen is embracing is believed by many to be considerable more costly to replace if left to decay.
It is not uncommon however for classified information to be leaked to the news media. There are a number of situations when the government intentionally provides classified information to the press that it wants publicly presented but for one reason or another but does not desire to release the information through official government venues. Then there are the occasions when potentially damaging classified information is released to the press by private individuals possibly for reasons of conscience. This form of information dissemination is typically illegal and can carry very harsh consequences if the source of information is identified and apprehended. Some high profile examples of this type of classified information leak would be the government documents called the "Pentagon Papers" released by Daniel Ellsberg in the 70s and more recently the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. In both cases the government indicted these whistleblowers on espionage charges among others.
Given the high risks involved in the less legal form of classified information dissemination, a reporter to must protect the confidentiality of their sources if they expect to be trusted in the face of the significant consequences of whistleblowing. However, no legislation involved in providing "freedom of the press" protects a reporter's right to keep a source confidential. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides the right to decline to testify in fear of self-incrimination, there is no legislation however providing the right to decline to testify in fear of source incrimination including the First Amendment. Most cases of such magnitude are heard in federal courts eventually, unfortunately more often than not the courts decide that the reporter does not have the right to refuse to testify and orders them to do so or face imprisonment for contempt of court. This is the legal situation James Risen finds himself in now; he has been order by a U. S. Court of Appeals to testify on the identity of a confidential source used in writing a book. Mr. Risen has stated that he will not divulge the identity of his source even if faced with imprisonment. If the U. S. Supreme Court, who has thus far declined to hear the case, does not reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals; Mr. Risen may be force to prove his resolve and remain in contempt of court. Though the cost of being imprisoned for another person's crime may be high, the principle James Risen is embracing is believed by many to be considerable more costly to replace if left to decay.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Ownership and Regulation
In chapter two of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway regulation of the media industry is discussed in detail. What is not necessarily discussed much is the role that media ownership can play in deciding what news will be reported on and how. The bias of a media outlet's ownership may play a part in what point of view is provided in a news piece. Perhaps what may be more alarming is ownership may have a decision in what stories are even reported at all by a particular news organization. The possible practice of censorship of a certain topic or point of view by media outlet ownership is one of the key reasons for regulation of the media.
An example of ownership shaping the point of view of a news piece could be the possibly that the political or ideological views of the media organization's ownership may be evident in the news content presented by the organization. When a story is reported by a media outlet with given political tendencies, it is possible the story will have a certain political flavor while offering little if any viewpoint of opposing political stance. Also if a media organization tends to utilize advisors and commentators typically cut from the same political fabric, this may allude to the political views of ownership. Certainly given the chance less ethical media organizations of particular bias would put forth obviously slanted views in an attempt to further their ideological or political positions.
Media regulation is the checks and balances that prohibit or at least attempt to deter this kind of viewpoint shaping and censorship. In terms of obvious censorship, there is clear legal recourse to protect the one's rights from being abused. However, in terms of slanting the viewpoint of a story, this can sometimes be harder to perceive and more difficult still to prove without a doubt. It is a reporter's ethical responsibility to have a balance of opposing viewpoint to compliment a fair news piece. When this ethical balance is not respected, it is the left to regulatory bodies to intervene. In response to unfair reporting, many media watch group have formed with the mission to ensure that their political or ideological views are respected and fairly portrayed in the media. These media watch group typically take it upon themselves to bring awareness to what they perceive to be potentially unfair media representations, while attempting to engage more formal regulatory bodies such as the FCC should an ethical offense be egregious enough.
An example of ownership shaping the point of view of a news piece could be the possibly that the political or ideological views of the media organization's ownership may be evident in the news content presented by the organization. When a story is reported by a media outlet with given political tendencies, it is possible the story will have a certain political flavor while offering little if any viewpoint of opposing political stance. Also if a media organization tends to utilize advisors and commentators typically cut from the same political fabric, this may allude to the political views of ownership. Certainly given the chance less ethical media organizations of particular bias would put forth obviously slanted views in an attempt to further their ideological or political positions.
Media regulation is the checks and balances that prohibit or at least attempt to deter this kind of viewpoint shaping and censorship. In terms of obvious censorship, there is clear legal recourse to protect the one's rights from being abused. However, in terms of slanting the viewpoint of a story, this can sometimes be harder to perceive and more difficult still to prove without a doubt. It is a reporter's ethical responsibility to have a balance of opposing viewpoint to compliment a fair news piece. When this ethical balance is not respected, it is the left to regulatory bodies to intervene. In response to unfair reporting, many media watch group have formed with the mission to ensure that their political or ideological views are respected and fairly portrayed in the media. These media watch group typically take it upon themselves to bring awareness to what they perceive to be potentially unfair media representations, while attempting to engage more formal regulatory bodies such as the FCC should an ethical offense be egregious enough.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Miscommunication, Op-Ed response
David Books in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times titled "The Autocracy Challenge" outlined the need for constant "interventionism" foreign policy by United States in autocratic regimes around the world. In his piece, Mr. Brooks criticizes President Obama's outlined foreign policy for his remaining tenure in office. Mr. Brooks seems to correlate what President Obama outlined as foreign policy with allowing all the worlds' dictators and thugs to operate with impunity. Even if he had step up to the podium and said just that would it be such a horrible proposition? After ramping down over a decade of war on multiple fronts, would minding our own business for a short period of time not be a healthy respite from the current political climate?
However, this is not what President Obama outline at West Point, he spoke of America's current relevance on the global stage. Obama shared his vision for an America that is a front runner for leading the world throughout the next century using the backbone of the greatest military in the world. He spoke of balance between over-reaching and under-reaching, not of keeping our hands out of geopolitical affairs. When President Obama alludes to the fact that the United States cannot fix all of the world's problems, David Brooks hears that we will not attempt to address any of them. Instead, Mr. Brooks has tuned out the president's speech in favor of a stroll through his geopolitical "international garden". David Brooks speaks of America's need to tend to this "international garden so that small problems didn't turn into big ones." I think Mr. Brooks needs to take a look around that garden he is daydreaming in; the only things United States "interventionism" is growing in that garden are more enemies and extremists.
As David Brooks continues on in his piece towards a conclusion he cites American foreign policy history over the past 70 years as having an effective 2 layer system. He criticizes the President of undermining the layers of this system by removing the United States as a global "enforcer." Well since Mr. Brooks is so proud of the history of our foreign policies let us survey the historical landscapes for our successes in the past. let us start with our meddling in Iran in the 50s, end result destabilized region that hates America. This gives rise to an Islamist revolutionary state which holds our diplomats hostage for 3 months threating to execute them. Korea, bloody conflict that never truly ends, nation split in two in which the north holds significant resentment toward America and remains an enemy state to this day. Vietnam, more than a decade long bloody conflict that claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. service men and countless Vietnamese among other southeast Asian people. Afghanistan, another decade long bloody conflict which cost thousands of lives; when we finally withdraw the bulk of our security forces in the near future I predict the same destabilized state in which the United States left Iraq.
Iraq, over a decade of bloody conflict again costing the lives of thousands of American service men and women and countless Iraqis. Since the withdraw of U.S. troops there has been increasing sectarian violence, leaving a decimated political structure which allies itself with a neighboring old American friend, Iran. If the United States had the foresight in foreign policy to see the only thing containing the sectarian violence in Iraq was the brutal autocrat that we destabilized, tried for war crimes, and hung. Perhaps if we would have exercised some restraint in the region it would have saved thousands of lives albeit not the ones Saddam took on his own accord. Either David Brooks is not familiar with the history of our foreign policy or he pays as close attention to it as he did to the president's speech before climbing upon is op-ed soapbox to denounce the command-in-chief's outline of future foreign policy as not being militarily interventionist enough.
However, this is not what President Obama outline at West Point, he spoke of America's current relevance on the global stage. Obama shared his vision for an America that is a front runner for leading the world throughout the next century using the backbone of the greatest military in the world. He spoke of balance between over-reaching and under-reaching, not of keeping our hands out of geopolitical affairs. When President Obama alludes to the fact that the United States cannot fix all of the world's problems, David Brooks hears that we will not attempt to address any of them. Instead, Mr. Brooks has tuned out the president's speech in favor of a stroll through his geopolitical "international garden". David Brooks speaks of America's need to tend to this "international garden so that small problems didn't turn into big ones." I think Mr. Brooks needs to take a look around that garden he is daydreaming in; the only things United States "interventionism" is growing in that garden are more enemies and extremists.
As David Brooks continues on in his piece towards a conclusion he cites American foreign policy history over the past 70 years as having an effective 2 layer system. He criticizes the President of undermining the layers of this system by removing the United States as a global "enforcer." Well since Mr. Brooks is so proud of the history of our foreign policies let us survey the historical landscapes for our successes in the past. let us start with our meddling in Iran in the 50s, end result destabilized region that hates America. This gives rise to an Islamist revolutionary state which holds our diplomats hostage for 3 months threating to execute them. Korea, bloody conflict that never truly ends, nation split in two in which the north holds significant resentment toward America and remains an enemy state to this day. Vietnam, more than a decade long bloody conflict that claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. service men and countless Vietnamese among other southeast Asian people. Afghanistan, another decade long bloody conflict which cost thousands of lives; when we finally withdraw the bulk of our security forces in the near future I predict the same destabilized state in which the United States left Iraq.
Iraq, over a decade of bloody conflict again costing the lives of thousands of American service men and women and countless Iraqis. Since the withdraw of U.S. troops there has been increasing sectarian violence, leaving a decimated political structure which allies itself with a neighboring old American friend, Iran. If the United States had the foresight in foreign policy to see the only thing containing the sectarian violence in Iraq was the brutal autocrat that we destabilized, tried for war crimes, and hung. Perhaps if we would have exercised some restraint in the region it would have saved thousands of lives albeit not the ones Saddam took on his own accord. Either David Brooks is not familiar with the history of our foreign policy or he pays as close attention to it as he did to the president's speech before climbing upon is op-ed soapbox to denounce the command-in-chief's outline of future foreign policy as not being militarily interventionist enough.
Interpretation
In chapter one of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway The interpretation of a news story by the media is discussed. The fact that the news is viewed through the lens of the interpretation of the media outlet that is reporting the story can be an obvious fact. The bias of a reporting journalist can sometimes be inferred directly from reading the piece that they present. More often however, it is the bias of the editorial structure filtering the journalist's work that is more obvious. Whether the skewed presentation be by design or simply caused by personal interpretation of the presenter may not always be as clear. Typically what has greater clarity however is the intention of the point of view embodied by a news story.
When discussing news such as mildly to moderately important current events, both domestic and abroad, the interpretation of the reporter may innocently act to flavor the story with a certain point of view. This may be caused by a reporter's lack of knowledge or experience with certain situations, cultures, or technologies. Perhaps less innocent, the personal theological, ideological, or political views of the reporter may act to skew their interpretation of the news story. Should the personal views of the presenting reporter or editorial body conflict with the nature of the news story, their interpretation of the events may be noticeably slanted in the direction of their views. Now to leave the realm of innocence, the potential political or ideology agenda of the publishing news organization or the reporter may become apparent in the flavor of the news piece. This is not necessarily due to the interpretation of the facts by the reporter but more due to the agenda of the organization or reporter.
Whether the skewed interpretation of the news is based on a lack of knowledge or a lack of ethics the end product is typically the same. The news piece delivered is either off center in terms of point of view or potentially inaccurate in terms of facts or motivations. As much as we would like to believe that our news media of choice presents factually accurate information and events which are devoid of any slanted viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is more than likely a naïve perspective to assume this is true more often than it is not. It is simply not practical to assume complete accuracy of reporting in this day in age, cynically one should heed the concept that you can not believe everything that you read.
When discussing news such as mildly to moderately important current events, both domestic and abroad, the interpretation of the reporter may innocently act to flavor the story with a certain point of view. This may be caused by a reporter's lack of knowledge or experience with certain situations, cultures, or technologies. Perhaps less innocent, the personal theological, ideological, or political views of the reporter may act to skew their interpretation of the news story. Should the personal views of the presenting reporter or editorial body conflict with the nature of the news story, their interpretation of the events may be noticeably slanted in the direction of their views. Now to leave the realm of innocence, the potential political or ideology agenda of the publishing news organization or the reporter may become apparent in the flavor of the news piece. This is not necessarily due to the interpretation of the facts by the reporter but more due to the agenda of the organization or reporter.
Whether the skewed interpretation of the news is based on a lack of knowledge or a lack of ethics the end product is typically the same. The news piece delivered is either off center in terms of point of view or potentially inaccurate in terms of facts or motivations. As much as we would like to believe that our news media of choice presents factually accurate information and events which are devoid of any slanted viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is more than likely a naïve perspective to assume this is true more often than it is not. It is simply not practical to assume complete accuracy of reporting in this day in age, cynically one should heed the concept that you can not believe everything that you read.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)