 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right Wing Protest:Pro-Reality |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Setting Your Mind Free: Protecting impressionable young adults from the leftist Media and Revisionist Edu-crats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Word Play |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recent mainstream media coverage on the capture of Saddam Hussein brought attention to a particular distaste I hold deep within my mind, liberal media bias. Upon the mention of Liberal bias my memory is jogged back to a conversation I had with a liberal friend of mine over the past summer. This particular topic came up with my friend asking me why I thought there was a liberal media bias. He stated that he never heard an anchor stating that abortion is a women's choice or that Bush was evil so he wondered how can I perceive of a media bias when viewing the news. I proceeded to explain the very same argument that I will reiterate in this article, that the liberal media bias is a matter of word play, the choosing of certain words over others. Since the liberal media over the past several days has been gracious enough to proved some examples I feel that what better time to explain this argument then now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Your Mind |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On A More Serious Note |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Info: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: |
|
Truthsense, Nonsense, and Dissent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email: |
|
|
|
|
|
[email protected] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the Monday mornings edition of the "Today" show, Katie Couric interviewed the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. During the course of this interview the topic of the consequences of Saddam"s capture came up. Couric stated "It appears that Saddam Hussein was in no position to be calling the shots or orchestrating the efforts against U.S. troops in Iraq. So, militarily," she continued, "how much of the enemy's capabilities have really been degraded by this capture?". Upon first hearing this you register a completely unbiased and very thoughtful line of questioning but upon further review you come to notice the slight of hand Couric uses to force the first opinion and most important opinion in your mind. How you ask? Just by including one word and one word only, the word really. By her stating "How much of the enemies capabilities have really been degraded by this capture" forces your mind to initially think that "Saddam's capture is not important. The enemy capabilities are not decreased. Even more so, the Bush administration is making it out to be more important than it is, and is trying to convince me that less hostilities will result when the opposite is true". All of this happens before you are provided with any reasonable facts or evidence to support that mind frame. All by just adding the word "really" into the question. If she had just restated the question to be " What effect does Saddam's capture have on the enemies capabilities" a more neutral stance is created giving you the chance to come to your own line of reasoning unburdeonened by the initial bias of Couric's liberal ideology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confused? Still not seeing it? Well Couric readily supplies us with another example from later on during the same interview. After Gen. Sanchez attempts to explain the various symbolic and concrete effects Saddam's capture would have in Iraq, Couric again attempts to turn the reader onto a path more akin to her political views. After hearing Sanchez's statements, Couric states Saddam's arrest "may actually incite various members of the insurgency" and "create an environment in which there is more violence against U.S. troops." It's the wording of the question that exhibits the bias. By stating using the word "may" gives one the impression that it is a high probability that numerous people will utilize his capture to incite violence. Whereas if she were to ask " What is the probability that this would incite violence" or " What impact on the degree of violence towards U.S. troops would Saddam's capture have" the reader once again would come into Sanchez's response with a balanced and clear mind left to decide on its own. |
|
|
|
Liberal Media Bias isn't some mythical conspiracy theory. It's becoming day in and day out the established fact and the established method of delivering news. Bias is never as blatant as a professed statement by Media moguls that, for example, only rednecks support the N.R.A. The Bias is inherent in every word they write and every word they leave out. They are masters of spoken and written word and know the ins and outs of using them to their advantage. While they may call it news, I see it as undermining the exchange of unbiased and free information which is necessary for me to achieve my civic duties as a citizen of the U.S.A. For me to make fair and well based decisions on political matters, that will have an affect on myself, my children, and my children's children, I need all the facts not just the ones the media want me to know. So In ending this article I ask you one last question. The Founding Fathers viewed freedom of press as being important enough to be included on the Bill of Rights. What would the Founding Fathers ask for now? Freedom of the Press or Freedom from the Press. |
|
|
|
Just the fact that the line of questioning evolved into one focusing on the negative aspects of Saddam's arrest rather than focusing on any positive aspects is inherently biased. Slowly but surely the listeners are mentally hijacked along a road where the idea of Saddam's capture becomes a negative story. First questioning the lack of impact of Saddam's capture starts the listener down her road. Then more and more follow up questions focus on the insurgents gaining a better will to fight, being bolstered by Saddam's capture, or on the chances that they will now act as fighting to free an unjustly imprisoned dictator. By the end of the interview the listener without knowing it had been given the impression that Saddam's capture is horrible for the future of the United States. Further reasoning would be that since Saddam's capture creates a negative global environment for the U.S. then the Bush administration is detrimental to my interests. Thus Couric achieves what she set out to achieve, convince the listeners, without them knowing it, that the liberal agenda is the truth, it's the news, thus making Bush unpopular, advance leftist ideology and aide the Democrats in their bid for reelection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|