Mainstream Media's carefully chosen words
There was an article yesterday that really caught my attention and placed a focus on how carefully each word in a given news article is chosen. That article is this one from Yahoo News, speaking about an ad that's airing which recalls that fact that in Feb. Sen. McCain stated that he would be fine with having U.S. forces in Iraq for the next 100 yrs., albeit, with qualifications.
The key part of the article is where it is stated that the ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq." It doesn't "falsely suggest" that Sen. McCain "wants" a 100-year war. It informs the viewer that Sen. McCain is fine with a 100-year occupation in Iraq. (The ad drops the portion of the senator's response where he mentions "We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so." The rest is him talking.)
Compare this with how the article quotes that town hall discussion McCain had in January, which is "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
The ACTUAL discussion was this:
Now, ask yourself if this sort of political ad is:
1. Reasonable
2. Common
From your answer determine whether or not it "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."
Then ask yourself the question of whether or not the mainstream media is attempting to distort the issue (by distorting what was actually said, for example.) How much trust do you place in that?
The key part of the article is where it is stated that the ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq." It doesn't "falsely suggest" that Sen. McCain "wants" a 100-year war. It informs the viewer that Sen. McCain is fine with a 100-year occupation in Iraq. (The ad drops the portion of the senator's response where he mentions "We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so." The rest is him talking.)
Compare this with how the article quotes that town hall discussion McCain had in January, which is "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
The ACTUAL discussion was this:
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Maybe a hundred.”
Q: “Is that …” (cut off)
McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …”
Q: [tries to say something]
McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
Now, ask yourself if this sort of political ad is:
1. Reasonable
2. Common
From your answer determine whether or not it "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."
Then ask yourself the question of whether or not the mainstream media is attempting to distort the issue (by distorting what was actually said, for example.) How much trust do you place in that?
posted by Reinvent Your World | 5:15 PM
|
0 comments
