| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 61° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
January 19, 2005
Rely on fact and evidence, not opinions
Locally, we are about to have a knock down drag out fight once again on the issue of incorporation and most people will rely on news sources for good data and content. They should do so with caution. The bias in favor of reciting progressive government talking points began shortly before the separation of church and state in 1947. No one can point to the exact conversion time, but replacement of journalistic detachment and search for truth with an agenda occurred nonetheless. Defenders of the media will say nay and that the charges are overblown and merely the baseless frustration of those who don't understand the inner workings of news organizations. This was the argument used by CBS and the commission of media insiders assigned to look into a totally fabricated story about our President's National Guard service. Their decision to vindicate one of the warlords of the airwaves based upon his claim he had only read a script provided him brought shivers. If he is justified in reading lies on national television as news, what does that say for all the other stories he has read. Assurances were given that this was an isolated case and did not, in anyway, represent television journalism at CBS. Oh, really. Perhaps the media apologists should have listened more closely when they were told by their own star witness the documents were forgeries. Or perhaps to the witness who stated the producer had been in constant contact with the leadership of the opposition party throughout the development of the piece. Or they might have even asked themselves why more than 82 percent of the stories read by the commentator about the President were negative in their content and portrayal. But then, they couldn't be expected to be objective, now could they. For if they had truly searched for evidence of wrongdoing, they might open the media equivalent of Pandora's box. And for evidence all they would have to do is listen to the nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC or PBS to get a feel for just how ideological many in the media have become. And the evidence is not on television alone. The Associated Press has used their near monopoly on news feeds to nearly all newspapers and magazines to promote an agenda favoring internationalism and socialist ideals over the interests of the United States. Each of these pieces appears to be a news story, right down to the headline for the one sided portrayal of events. Headline: "World hot spots tax military." "The military will have plenty to do in the four years of a second Bush administration." What is totally left out of the hit piece is any reference to the 40 percent reduction in military forces accomplished by Bush's predecessor. Why not discuss the reason for the reduction and the potential need to rejuvenate our protection. Headline: "War toll grows, in blood, treasure, strain on troops." "Small, volunteer force becoming increasingly impractical." First see the headline above and then consider the call by democrats during the last election cycle to startup the draft again. The whole truth is more U.S. citizens die violently each year in the state of California than have died during the entire Iraq conflict. Should we pull out of California? Perhaps a U.N. commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter can get to the bottom of this ongoing tragedy. As you can see, the way news is presented and portrayed can have a very compelling effect on how people react to it. Fear and the anticipation of loss are used expertly to motivate populations to favor or oppose issues much larger than a short sound bite or news clip can do justice in discussing. There are those who oppose our involvement in any foreign war for any reason, even our own protection. Others claim not supporting this issue or that entitlement will kill children, cause global warming, starve seniors and force our schools to close. The truth is much less pressing than the unnamed sources quoted in news accounts would have us believe. All of this may be very relevant during the upcoming discussion concerning incorporation and how the benefits and pitfalls are portrayed. The Pros will portray anything not supporting their goal as rumor or lies, and the Cons will try to do the same. So when you hear or read a point in favor of or opposed to the issue, look for the detail supporting the comment. The best solution is to get the facts and not simply rely on those who speak but cannot provide evidence or name a source. Hopefully the CBS experience taught us this if nothing else. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
