Fox "News"
I was just checking to see what was on TV, and my channel surfing brought my through Fox "News." What were they discussing? Why the "failure" of the media to report on the success in Iraq. Senator Chuck Hegel (R-NE) apparently says that we are losing in Iraq. Clearly, that is not news, yet one of the commentators (I refuse to say "reporter") said that we were winning.
The insurgents, he explained, don't have the capacity to mount a large offensive (Tet was his counter-example to the failed attack on Abu-Ghraib) and don't have a leader from Iraq. Furthermore, he hastened to add, "it's just terrorism." Um, yeah. We got that part.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Bin-Laden is not from New York, never set foot on, much less controlled, U.S. soil, yet 9/11 happened. Don't worry, folks. Fox has just broken the big secret: it's "just" terrorism. Never mind that one of the four reasons given (each with its own month, at that) for using military force in Iraq was to combat terrorism (the "War on Terror"). It's "just" terrorism. Never mind that Bin-Laden is still free, and that worldwide efforts to capture him show less commitment than Elizabeth Taylor at a wedding, we are in Iraq to prosecute this war on "just" terrorists.
Wow. And they have the gall to use the word "News" outside of quotes?
posted by Andrew Purvis @ 3:56 AM
3 Comments:
You go honey!
ILY
sp
I might have people disagree, but I've found it easy to pick apart almost all media outlets anymore.
I know that many people use the term "liberal media," while others have used the term "right-wing media," but I've come to the conclusion that both terms might be true. Almost everyone puts their spin on a story - whether it's intentional or unintentional.
Sometimes it's easy to watch or read a story and think, "Well, that's rather objective. Not too bad." Other times it's easy to think, "Wow, that has a lot spin in it."
I can only speak for myself, but I'll use as many outlets as possible for my information and attempt to figure out what's fact and what's opinion.
Part of my problem here is that this is not news. I know that news outlets all have Op-Ed divisions, but I also expect reason and intelligence from the people whose job it is to publish or broadcast opinion.
The claim that the insurgents in Iraq can't seem to hold territory is accurate. The idea that they have a non-Iraqi leader, however, is irrelevant. The statement that the insurgents are "just" terrorists undermines all value of the first statement. Terrorists do not try to control territory, they try to disrupt the status quo, to undermine the authority of those in power, and to instill terror in the people who live where they attack. In all of these, they have succeeded.
What Fox was saying is that we, not the insurgents, are winning. What Fox ended up saying is that the insurgents are winning on their terms while we are winning on ours. Oddly, this is precisely what I get from every news source except Fox.
Post a Comment
<< Home