Saturday, September 25, 2004
More Opinion Presented as Objective "News"
I think the English newspapers here in Japan are pretty representative of what one finds around the world. News items from wire services like Reuters and Associated Press are regularly used in news publications far and wide. In my last post I had mentioned my impressions of George Bush's speech before the United Nations. I'll state again that I thought it was a masterpiece; eloquent and even profound. One could hardly find themselves taking issue with a speech that emphasized the value of expanding human freedom and prosperity in the world. But, of course, many who listened to the President's speech were merely "considering the source." I'm sure there were more than a few who actually didn't agree with the ideas that were stated in the speech. The UN is not exactly a body dominated by freely elected democratic representatives.
The Daily Yomiuri, one of Japan's English edition newspapers, had a brief article on its front page regarding the President's speech before the UN. As is often the case, Reuters was the source of the "objective news" item. Remember, Reuters is the wire service that stated it will not use the word "terrorists" to describe...terrorists. The absolutely ridiculous stand was taken by Reuters' head saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," (we at least know he "takes a side" and who's side he takes).
Many people probably didn't read Bush's recent speech in it's entirety. One can imagine the impressions one would get from the Reuter's overview (some quotes follow):
"...U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday defended the U.S.-led invasion..." A few sentences in Bush's speech could be interpreted as such, but there was no outright "defense of the U.S. led invasion" in his speech, and to say so conjures a view of the speech that is far off the mark from what he actually said and what the overall tone of the speech was about (references to Iraq were actually very brief in the overall theme of the speech).
"In a U.N. speech with election-year overtones, Bush made no apologies about his decision to go to war against Iraq in 2003 without U.N. Security Council backing based on claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were not found." Again, this is front page "news" coverage of Bush's speech? Forgive my own bias, but I don't think this sounds like objective "news." This is an editorial pure and simple. It would be a fair claim -- in an editorial -- that Bush is running for president and is aware of statements he makes in that context, but to state what Reuters has stated is blatant bias. It would be like quoting John Kerry and then saying, "don't forget, this guy is running for President, so don't take his statements seriously for what they are." And, what's this crap about making "no apologies about...[Iraq]" with all the extra nonsense about unfound weapons of mass destruction (one of many reasons for having gone into Iraq). Can one imagine a speech on foreign policy by John Kerry where the reporter adds, "Kerry made no apologies for having supported the Viet Cong communists during the Vietnam war and failed to prove he was actually injured when receiving medals that ultimately got him out of fighting in a mere four month period."
Another classic issue in the bogus "news" article was, "Bush's 21 minute speech was met mostly with stony silence, save for polite applause at the end." As the dreaded FOX News Channel pointed out, it is part of regular UN protocol to not applaud during a speech and to keep applause at the end of a speech restrained and "polite." In any event, the normal "silence" that accompanies such speeches was described as "stony" silence for Bush's speech. Give me a break. These arrogant media clowns have the nerve to insist they are not biased?
In further " facts and information" regarding Bush's speech to the UN we get, "He appeared at the United Nations at a time of rising violence in Iraq, with suicide car bombings and beheadings, and some lawmakers in his own Republican Party are questioning his Iraq policy. Democrats warn of a quagmire for U.S. troops." This is the objective report Reuters gives us regarding the President's speech at the UN? I recommend reading the actual speech to decide if you think this pervasive sprinkling of editorial comment is an objective report regarding Bush's speech on the value of freedom and democracy (what most of the speech was really about).
I really believe that more and more people are becoming aware of just how absurd and obvious the "mainstream" press has become in its left of center bias. The examples I noted above in this one particular article are typical of those I see every day in most mainstream sources. Sometimes they're subtle and open to debate. Often they're blatent and non-apologetic. Add to this, the capitalist villians typically depicted in so many hollywood movies, the publishing industry's marginalization of conservative or libertarian perspectives, and the education monolith of unions, Ed Schools, and state bureaucracies.
Of course, such blatent bias and propaganda is seen as justified because everyone knows..."Left=good, right=bad" -- or so we are told.
The Daily Yomiuri, one of Japan's English edition newspapers, had a brief article on its front page regarding the President's speech before the UN. As is often the case, Reuters was the source of the "objective news" item. Remember, Reuters is the wire service that stated it will not use the word "terrorists" to describe...terrorists. The absolutely ridiculous stand was taken by Reuters' head saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," (we at least know he "takes a side" and who's side he takes).
Many people probably didn't read Bush's recent speech in it's entirety. One can imagine the impressions one would get from the Reuter's overview (some quotes follow):
"...U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday defended the U.S.-led invasion..." A few sentences in Bush's speech could be interpreted as such, but there was no outright "defense of the U.S. led invasion" in his speech, and to say so conjures a view of the speech that is far off the mark from what he actually said and what the overall tone of the speech was about (references to Iraq were actually very brief in the overall theme of the speech).
"In a U.N. speech with election-year overtones, Bush made no apologies about his decision to go to war against Iraq in 2003 without U.N. Security Council backing based on claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were not found." Again, this is front page "news" coverage of Bush's speech? Forgive my own bias, but I don't think this sounds like objective "news." This is an editorial pure and simple. It would be a fair claim -- in an editorial -- that Bush is running for president and is aware of statements he makes in that context, but to state what Reuters has stated is blatant bias. It would be like quoting John Kerry and then saying, "don't forget, this guy is running for President, so don't take his statements seriously for what they are." And, what's this crap about making "no apologies about...[Iraq]" with all the extra nonsense about unfound weapons of mass destruction (one of many reasons for having gone into Iraq). Can one imagine a speech on foreign policy by John Kerry where the reporter adds, "Kerry made no apologies for having supported the Viet Cong communists during the Vietnam war and failed to prove he was actually injured when receiving medals that ultimately got him out of fighting in a mere four month period."
Another classic issue in the bogus "news" article was, "Bush's 21 minute speech was met mostly with stony silence, save for polite applause at the end." As the dreaded FOX News Channel pointed out, it is part of regular UN protocol to not applaud during a speech and to keep applause at the end of a speech restrained and "polite." In any event, the normal "silence" that accompanies such speeches was described as "stony" silence for Bush's speech. Give me a break. These arrogant media clowns have the nerve to insist they are not biased?
In further " facts and information" regarding Bush's speech to the UN we get, "He appeared at the United Nations at a time of rising violence in Iraq, with suicide car bombings and beheadings, and some lawmakers in his own Republican Party are questioning his Iraq policy. Democrats warn of a quagmire for U.S. troops." This is the objective report Reuters gives us regarding the President's speech at the UN? I recommend reading the actual speech to decide if you think this pervasive sprinkling of editorial comment is an objective report regarding Bush's speech on the value of freedom and democracy (what most of the speech was really about).
I really believe that more and more people are becoming aware of just how absurd and obvious the "mainstream" press has become in its left of center bias. The examples I noted above in this one particular article are typical of those I see every day in most mainstream sources. Sometimes they're subtle and open to debate. Often they're blatent and non-apologetic. Add to this, the capitalist villians typically depicted in so many hollywood movies, the publishing industry's marginalization of conservative or libertarian perspectives, and the education monolith of unions, Ed Schools, and state bureaucracies.
Of course, such blatent bias and propaganda is seen as justified because everyone knows..."Left=good, right=bad" -- or so we are told.
