Of course The Post has published editorials on the subjects Rumsfeld mentioned – mass graves, U.N. abuse, terrorist killings – and on the crimes and misdemeanors of many other foreign actors besides, from Darfur to China to Burma, from Saddam Hussein to Robert Mugabe.
But it’s also true that The Post has published more editorials criticizing Donald Rumsfeld than Abu Musab Zarqawi. That’s partly because, to the extent that editorials are meant to educate or explain, there isn’t all that much to say about Zarqawi’s evil that isn’t evident to most Post readers; and to the extent that editorials are meant to influence, there’s no point in addressing messages to the beheaders of the world.
Jimmie here really hit the crux of media bias well
Did you catch that? You don’t see editorials about Zarqawi because, 1) we already know everything we need to know about him, and 2) he wouldn’t listen to us anyway.
This conclusion assumes two things. First, it assumes that we really do know everything we need to know about people like Zarqawi. That’s a heck of a stretch. I wonder how many people know just who the man is, how long he’s been an active terrorist in Iraq, how long he’d been supported directly by Saddam Hussein, how long he’s been actively working with and for al-Qaeda, or who his terrorist attacks have been targeting. I suspect that if our mass media had reported more widely the documented ties we know existed between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein, we wouldn’t hear much rubbish about how Hussein had no ties to terrorism. You’ll remember that one of the major reasons the President gave for toppling Hussein were his ties to and active support of terrorists just like Zarqawi.
But that jumps over a more important point. Newspaper editorials really aren’t about delivering facts. That’s what the news articles are suppoed to do. Editorials exist to deliver opinion - their job is to persuade, not to inform. Perhaps Hiatt’s confusion about the role of a newspaper editorial might also explain the problem with so many news articles. If he, a veteran reporter, believes that editorials are supposed to deliver facts, might he also believe that news articles are supposed to deliver opinions? It’s a fair question, I think.
HIs second assumption is one that still baffles me. Does Hiatt honestly believe that the purpose of a critical editorial about Zarqawi is supposed to be to change Zarqawi’s behavior? That’s a ridiculous assumption. If Hiatt actuallybelieves that, then ihs column is even more foolish. If he honestly believes that editorials critical of people like Zarqawi are written to change their behavior, that means that the Post ought to be writing editorials to Zaraqwi, Robert Mugabe, the government of the Sudan, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Kofi Annan every single day in the hopes that their words might forestall the slaughter that these people are either committing themselves, or are condoning with their cooperation. Every day an editorial addresses some piece of frippery like a report that a guard at Gitmo handled a Koran with one hand instead of two is a day when the Post fails to use its great influence to try to prevent thousands more people from dying.
If Hiatt’s second conclusion is right, his newspaper is guilty of terrible apathy. Is that the conclusion he wants us to draw?
it goes with something the good comedian i saw last night said
we don't have a low attention span, we have a low attention span for ****
Maybe some one should try to fill the people in on just how dark some of these people the media likes to make kissy faces at are.
Maybe then members of the US senate would realize turning the air conditioning on High isn't the height of evil today... or even Nazilike
No comments:
Post a Comment