![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"A blow for the war on terror" (?!?)
Aug. 18th, 2006 07:20 amI really just can't believe our media this morning. A judge rules that the wiretapping of US phones by the government without warrants is unconstitutional (finally). In my mind this is a step in the right direction in terms of getting our civil rights and liberties back. I notice that the print media has taken a fairly neutral stance to this, but the television media is touting this in terms of "a blow to the war on terror," something straight from the president's spin doctors.
I turned on ABC news this morning briefly - that's ABC, not FOX news - and the lead in to this story was "and up next a major blow to the war on terror." My heart lept to my throat as I thought I was going to hear about some plot that succeeded and caused horrible damage or civilian casualties. No, what I go on to hear is that a judge ruled that domestic warrantless wire tapping is unconstitutional. What scares me most about this is the phraseology - everything the judge ruled was stated as an opinion "what this judge is saying is that President Bush is acting like a king," for instance. President Bush's party line, however, is treated in much more direct statements, which tend to imply fact and truth rather than opinion. The result was the most bias I have ever heard in journalism.
Yes I picked this up because I firmly believe that this is a victory for liberty rather than a loss in the war on terror, but the fact remains that the spin in the televised media is out of control. I believe that most Americans get their news from TV rather than print or online sources. So what does this mean for our populous? What does it mean when the president's opinions are phrases as inalienable truths not just by his administration, but by the media? The allusions to Pravda during the Stalin era (ironic to have a newspaper named "truth," no? Does it remind anyone of Fox News' "fair and balanced promotions?).
Benjamin Franklin's well known words just keep ringing truer and truer: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
I turned on ABC news this morning briefly - that's ABC, not FOX news - and the lead in to this story was "and up next a major blow to the war on terror." My heart lept to my throat as I thought I was going to hear about some plot that succeeded and caused horrible damage or civilian casualties. No, what I go on to hear is that a judge ruled that domestic warrantless wire tapping is unconstitutional. What scares me most about this is the phraseology - everything the judge ruled was stated as an opinion "what this judge is saying is that President Bush is acting like a king," for instance. President Bush's party line, however, is treated in much more direct statements, which tend to imply fact and truth rather than opinion. The result was the most bias I have ever heard in journalism.
Yes I picked this up because I firmly believe that this is a victory for liberty rather than a loss in the war on terror, but the fact remains that the spin in the televised media is out of control. I believe that most Americans get their news from TV rather than print or online sources. So what does this mean for our populous? What does it mean when the president's opinions are phrases as inalienable truths not just by his administration, but by the media? The allusions to Pravda during the Stalin era (ironic to have a newspaper named "truth," no? Does it remind anyone of Fox News' "fair and balanced promotions?).
Benjamin Franklin's well known words just keep ringing truer and truer: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
