Amazon.com Widgets

Monday, April 24, 2006

Charles concludes his post Ahmadinejad Raves, MSM Yawns by asking the rhetorical question:

A cynic might conclude that the media are shying away from reporting Ahmadinejad’s insanity because they want to avoid creating support for a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And in the very next post, points to this article by the editor of press trade publication Editor & Publisher arguing that press professionals need to be even more agenda driven than they already are: Will Press Put Out Fire on Iran?

...Newspapers may be in the role of bullpen stopper right now, with the current Iran "semi-crisis." In baseball lingo, they should try to "put out the fire" there, after losing one for the home team in Iraq three years ago.

To those who would say that this inflates the power or even role of the press in America today, I would reply: You don't expect the Democrats to keep us out of war, do you? Just as they would not stand up to the president on Iraq for fear of appearing "weak on terror," they would likely be wary of appearing "weak on the Tehran Bomb." Let’s face it: All the Democrats want to do right now is stagger through to November with an unpopular president in office, and hope that, maybe, they can re-take at least one house of Congress -- without having to stick their necks out.

So the media, usually only a middle-reliever or in a mop-up role on this playing field, might have to pitch with the game on the line...

...Thankfully, there are signs that the press may be ready to douse a few flames. Recent media accounts have often cast a skeptical eye on the trumped-up Iran threat, and reporters are already asking probing questions at White House briefings -- before the war this time, not months after an attack...

You just can't trust the press to paint an honest picture of the world for you -- to give you the information to allow you to construct as accurate a picture as possible to make your decisions...something a democracy relies upon -- without having to peal back layer upon layer of agenda and BS first.

1 Comment

Charles and Mel are right. In Saturday's (Toronto) Globe and Mail there was a large article by a "stopper" who set up his argument to more or less Ahmadinejad's threats and nuclear activities on the basis that what we find abhorent in him could also be said about Geo W. Bush and that as Ahmadinejad is sooooo crazy, we're best not to engage with him. (As though Bush has been shrieking about wiping any countries off the face of the map or denying historic facts like the Holocaust.)

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]