Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Reporting By Rote
John, like my family and I, saw Buchanan's latest bunch of brain droppings last night on CNN's The Situation Room. It was your usual "reconquista" bullshit, the idea that the invading hordes of brown people would drag us screaming into the maw of anarchy and that the only way to survive was to shut the borders immediately and consider who the "proper" (read: white) immigrants were.
This is nothing new, of course. The real problem, as John says, is that "[t]he news channels sure give him a lot of air time to spew his venom." But that's not the worst of it. As I watched, the interviewer read off outrageous statement after outrageous statement from Buchanan's book. And not once, not once, did he call bullshit. Instead, he just kept asking Buchanan to explain his statements. I've heard of the term "letting them dig a hole", but it's not as useful when you hand them a stepladder.
This is one of the many, many problems with the media these days: hitting all the "crucial" questions and not following up on any of them. Making sure that all the necessary steps are covered in minimal time, to give you the aura of having accomplished something without having accomplished something. Another instance of this was something I saw back in July. Franklin Graham was being interviewed about his Samaritan's Purse program, and the reporter asked him to clarify his comments about Islam being "a very evil and wicked religion". Instead, Graham focused on the first part of that statement, the one about the God of Islam not being the God of the Bible. He said not one word in defense of or rejecting his earlier statements.
And the reporter did not care. Instead, he just moved on to the next question.
It's getting worse now. As John points out, some reporters are filling in the blanks for politicians, allowing them to make illogical and patently false statements without actually having them say it. The media exists to tear aside the veil put up by those in power. It should not exist as that veil.
This is nothing new, of course. The real problem, as John says, is that "[t]he news channels sure give him a lot of air time to spew his venom." But that's not the worst of it. As I watched, the interviewer read off outrageous statement after outrageous statement from Buchanan's book. And not once, not once, did he call bullshit. Instead, he just kept asking Buchanan to explain his statements. I've heard of the term "letting them dig a hole", but it's not as useful when you hand them a stepladder.
This is one of the many, many problems with the media these days: hitting all the "crucial" questions and not following up on any of them. Making sure that all the necessary steps are covered in minimal time, to give you the aura of having accomplished something without having accomplished something. Another instance of this was something I saw back in July. Franklin Graham was being interviewed about his Samaritan's Purse program, and the reporter asked him to clarify his comments about Islam being "a very evil and wicked religion". Instead, Graham focused on the first part of that statement, the one about the God of Islam not being the God of the Bible. He said not one word in defense of or rejecting his earlier statements.
And the reporter did not care. Instead, he just moved on to the next question.
It's getting worse now. As John points out, some reporters are filling in the blanks for politicians, allowing them to make illogical and patently false statements without actually having them say it. The media exists to tear aside the veil put up by those in power. It should not exist as that veil.
Comments:
<< Home
And so, my liberal friend, your plan for solving the ills of the world are? Great style of writing, btw. If the god of the bible is not the god of islam, then we have one helluva dilemma. Which one is it? Can any "god", as we understand the word, be evil? My guess is that there is but one, but it is neutral as to the demonination it propones. It's usn's that have fucked it up. Just my take. But people's interpretation of such can be evil, which, again, is my opinion. Islam is wrong and evil. They want your ass dead. Mr. Graham doesn't.
And what would you do about the borders? Just as an example, many roofing companies have gone under the past few years because the established one's get run out of business because they find it hard to find citizens to do the work because the pay is good, but the south-of-the-border crowd comes in and starts a company, undercuts what the other can pay, puts them out of business, and then buys up the equipment when they go out of business. Is that the way you want business to work in America? Just asking. No need for a full scale nuclear war.
And what would you do about the borders? Just as an example, many roofing companies have gone under the past few years because the established one's get run out of business because they find it hard to find citizens to do the work because the pay is good, but the south-of-the-border crowd comes in and starts a company, undercuts what the other can pay, puts them out of business, and then buys up the equipment when they go out of business. Is that the way you want business to work in America? Just asking. No need for a full scale nuclear war.
Thank you, sir. I'm glad to see you're ignoring my points. And I'm glad to see that you think an entire faith, a faith whole membership numbers over 1 billion, is evil, and I'm glad to see you think that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people wants us dead. Including, apparently, the Muslims I was friends with in high school. Amazing! I couldn't tell they were jihadis!
As for the borders, I agree that something needs to be done about illegal immigration. But the "undercutting" model you use? That's how business on the lower end of the spectrum works, in general, regardless of skin color or nationality. Yes, it's dog eat dog, but if a group of illegal immigrants grew more successful by working for less, then it's just as likely that a group of red-blooded Americans would grow more successful by working for less. It's nasty, but it's how our system works.
And even aside from all of that, what Buchanan recommends is having America retreat into its shell and avoid everything in the world that does not directly affect it. No new immigrants (at least until we can decide who the "right" ones are). No refugees. No asylum. No interventions in places like Bosnia, Darfur, or Iraq (yes, I supported the War in Iraq, until it turned out that it was being conducted by idiots). Hell, this is the man who said that the US had no real reason to get involved in WWII, and that we should have just left Nazi Germany to do what it did because the leaders were democratically elected. When men like that are given a special slot in our news media without being questioned for their opinions (and I don't mean, "What do you think about...?", but "How can you think that...?"), then we've failed somehow.
Post a Comment
As for the borders, I agree that something needs to be done about illegal immigration. But the "undercutting" model you use? That's how business on the lower end of the spectrum works, in general, regardless of skin color or nationality. Yes, it's dog eat dog, but if a group of illegal immigrants grew more successful by working for less, then it's just as likely that a group of red-blooded Americans would grow more successful by working for less. It's nasty, but it's how our system works.
And even aside from all of that, what Buchanan recommends is having America retreat into its shell and avoid everything in the world that does not directly affect it. No new immigrants (at least until we can decide who the "right" ones are). No refugees. No asylum. No interventions in places like Bosnia, Darfur, or Iraq (yes, I supported the War in Iraq, until it turned out that it was being conducted by idiots). Hell, this is the man who said that the US had no real reason to get involved in WWII, and that we should have just left Nazi Germany to do what it did because the leaders were democratically elected. When men like that are given a special slot in our news media without being questioned for their opinions (and I don't mean, "What do you think about...?", but "How can you think that...?"), then we've failed somehow.
<< Home
