Kodiak,
I gave up long ago on getting news from TV, so I've never had the chance to notice the networks simply mime the NYT. Is this an observation of yours or is it a documented way that networks operate? I would expect that there would be some copyright issues, but maybe what you're saying is that the networks can't think of an original slant so they all say the same thing? I can believe that.
What I have observed is that accuracy and comprehensiveness are not priorities when writing news. They are down the list from other priorities such as surprise, emotive capacity, gore, dirt, and in general, giving them what they want. As just shown in Cali, the stranger and more seductively repulsive, the better, even if it has little to do with the present issue.
That said, I unfortunately think far to many of us, myself included, wish to believe our leaders are doing the right thing and doing it with wisdom and judgement. We're not inclined to think of them as humans with insecurities, vices, and moments of utter weakness. If we do think these things, we're likely to think them of the person who we didn't vote for and who is not in power.
We're even less inclined to think of our country as being on the wrong side of history or participating in acts that are immoral, criminal, or grossly mistaken. And yes, I think violating international law, stretching and fabricating the truth about nuclear and biological weapons, and miscalculating what a victory in Iraq would look like does all of these. So giving them what they want enables a certain degree of blindness about our own affairs.
I'll give a counter example to your Arnold example. When Bush and Putin recently came together, how was that meeting reported in your sources?
In my paper, the New Orleans Times Picayune, a picture of Bush and Putin shaking hands, smiling, was featured along with the headline "Bush-Putin Make Progress in Iraq". In the first few paragraph it quotes unnamed sources that state that Russia will likely give troops to assist us.
I pick up the NYT, even though my wife thinks its a waste of time because there's no comics. Here's what I read. "Bush, Putin, unable to reach agreement about Irans nuclear development" Something like that. It goes on to tell me that Russia is finalizing a contract with Iran to develop a nuclear reactor capable of making fission quality material. Of course, both Russia and Iran say that this will be used to produce energy, because that is so hard to come by in Iran.
In the NO paper, Putin is quoted as saying "We will do everything possible so that none of this material will be made into a WMD." That's it. No critical analysis, no mention of the fact that this reactor can have no other purpose, etc. The slant was that this was a good meeting, lots of progress, the Iran stuff will all get taken care of with inspectors and the UN, etc.
The NYT times tells me that this meeting was an abject failure on the most important issues - not even a clear statement of support from Russia about Iraq (and nothing close to troops or money), and I learn that Russia is actively supporting the building of an Iranian nuclear reactor. Furthermore, the NYT tells me that the possibility that this reactor will actually be used for energy is suspect, since Iran is awash in both energy sources and has experience in building its own oil burning plants. It goes on to say that it has been a priority of the Bush administration to block the development of this reactor and infers that Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear power because it believes that this is the only way to deter a US invasion - a possibility that it believes is more likely now than ever before.
OK let me ask you, do you think Americans believe that Russia is our ally in the war on terrorism and that Putin and Bush are comrades in arms? Or do you think Americans think that Russia is actively turning Iran into a nuclear power and that Bush has been powerless to do anything about it? |
