A rare observation on media coverage
Two quick observations on the news coverage today.
1) How many stories did I see on the "unprecedented" security on Bush's stopover in Pakistan? Details about the plane, the stay, the number of people involved all delivered in this amazed and breathless tone.
Hey, media whores. Did you not know that President Bush was hated in Pakistan? Are you seriously amazed by the fact that the country where Al Qaeda still finds support and refuge to this day might not like George Bush? Stop listening to the White House and read some foreign press.
2) On the ports deal, I've repeatedly heard various announcers make the observation that the democrats are trying to outflank the president from the right.
Think about the assumption there, that in order to take any action against terrorism, the democrats have to try to fight from the Republican side.
Because after all, the Republicans are the only ones who want to stop terror attacks.
Sorry, I don't do this media critique often as it's an endless black hole, but for some reason today, these both just got up my butt.
1) How many stories did I see on the "unprecedented" security on Bush's stopover in Pakistan? Details about the plane, the stay, the number of people involved all delivered in this amazed and breathless tone.
Hey, media whores. Did you not know that President Bush was hated in Pakistan? Are you seriously amazed by the fact that the country where Al Qaeda still finds support and refuge to this day might not like George Bush? Stop listening to the White House and read some foreign press.
2) On the ports deal, I've repeatedly heard various announcers make the observation that the democrats are trying to outflank the president from the right.
Think about the assumption there, that in order to take any action against terrorism, the democrats have to try to fight from the Republican side.
Because after all, the Republicans are the only ones who want to stop terror attacks.
Sorry, I don't do this media critique often as it's an endless black hole, but for some reason today, these both just got up my butt.
posted by mikevotes at
10:19 PM
2 Comments:
Why would you call protecting access to our ports the "Republican side ?" Isn't it the American side? Or do you think that vocal Republican talking points that dominate the country's agenda and the MSM are automatically true - that the place they've assumed (while reviling or ignoring any suggestions from the opposition party) is the way things must be? You continue the notion that the Republicans "own" national security, although Democratic presidents have done a better job of shepherding our country through war.Current Democrats have initiated legislation to improve port security that has been crushed for purely partisan reasons by Repugs like Frist.I suppose if he supported such legislation, he would be admitting that Dems also can protect national interests.I've heard soldiers spew these talking points about the war, saying they were "protecting our freedom", but I could never understand how starting the war was protecting us in any way. I believe the current excuse for war is to spread democracy (to factions that have no knowledge, experience, or desire for the big D).
By
Jim, at 8:34 AM
That is exactly my point, Jim, that that point of view, that Republicans mean security, is deeply embedded in the media narrative.
Certainly it's not at all true, but I was just struck by how "for granted" that "republicans equals security" seems to be in the media.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home