|
|
|
April 08, 2008
Meaningless news, but it's "surprising"
I don't know what is so damned "suprising" about the fact that an ABC News reporter found four soldiers in Iraq who said they were for Obama, and one or two who said they were for Hillary, but that's what the headline says -- "Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops" -- and the story implies (without daring to state directly) that soldiers in Iraq support Democrats by a huge margin. Note the careful wording: ABC's Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates.And this: Though the military is generally a more conservative group, soldiers like Sgt. Justin Sarbaum are just as eager for a pull-out as the Democratic candidates."Asked American solders in Iraq" does not specify the size of the group or how and why they were selected. "Soldiers like Sgt. Justin Sarbaum" means what? Anything you want it to mean, I guess. Not one soldier who supports McCain was mentioned or interviewed. Somehow, I don't think that's because none could be found. All this proves is that the United States is a democracy, and citizens -- yes even soldiers -- can vote for whomever they want. Why, that's even allowed in Philadelphia. In the last mayoral election, I vaguely remember that Republican candidate (what's-his-name? Al Taubenberger, that's it) ran against Democrat Michael Nutter, and got 17% of the vote. Yet any fool could have run around with a microphone and a camera, and found half a dozen Philadelphians who would have gladly admitted they were for Taubenberger. Unless there's some sort of accurate polling, anecdotal statements means nothing. In the last election Kerry 18% of the military vote -- which is better than Taubenberger did with the Philadelphia vote. What this means, obviously, is that anyone could have run around with a camera, interviewed Kerry supporting soldiers, and then solemnly and truthfully intoned that "soldiers supported Kerry." This meaningless news item is a good argument against television. posted by Eric on 04.08.08 at 03:38 PM
Comments
By the way, "Paths of Glory" was banned in France for over 20 years. The government of France censors movies that criticize press censorship! It wasn't until the 1970s that it was legal in France to see this movie. chocolatier · April 8, 2008 06:35 PM The bigger question is: Will the military absentee votes be counted or will they be ignored like the last two times? SeniorD · April 8, 2008 08:00 PM This is a great example of why it is inappropriate for members of the military to comment on politics. It is easily misconstrued. And, if misconstrued effectively enough and John McCain wins, well then the military must not support the President - oh no! Joseph Sixpack · April 8, 2008 08:17 PM If the Iraq fiasco were being run on objective truth, we'd have never gone in in the first place. Seems unsporting for the pro-war minority to ask for it now. alphie · April 8, 2008 11:56 PM You still watch television? Uncle Fester · April 9, 2008 09:31 AM What's it all about, alphie? The "objective truth" (let me add sic to that, lest anybody think I believe we ought to give credence to subjective "truth," which I think now goes by the moniker "truthiness") about Iraq has been hashed out many times now: the great bulk of worldwide intelligence analysis asserted that Saddam Hussein had not fully disbanded his WMD programs nor destroyed all his WMD, he either could not or would not produce UN-required records that he had done so, he'd been acting in defiance of the GWI cease-fire for over a decade, his Iraq was demonstrably a state sponsor of terrorism and, as such, a legitimate target on that basis alone, etc., etc. What do you say about THIS story? Was the reporting objective? You imply that you recognize it wasn't; why is the non-objectivity of the press acceptable to you? Isn't press objectivity the rationale (rationalization?) presented by the press itself for reporting on whatever the heck reporters want to? Would your opinion of the importance of at least an attempt at press objectivity be different if the position they supported were different from yours? Jamie · April 9, 2008 01:19 PM It's perfectly legitimate journalism. Journalists are not in a court of law. They do not have to tell the whole truth on pain om imprisonment. How could they? She accuratly reported their opinions. She may have sought out these opinions and ignored opinions that did not fit her agenda. That's OK. Journalism is the the perfect perofession for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can pick and choose what facts and opinions they want to see and then move on. They may loose all their credibillity in the process - that's a risk they appear happy to make. Anonymous · April 9, 2008 01:54 PM It's perfectly legitimate journalism. Journalists are not in a court of law. They do not have to tell the whole truth on pain om imprisonment. How could they? She accuratly reported their opinions. She may have sought out these opinions and ignored opinions that did not fit her agenda. That's OK. Journalism is the the perfect profession for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can pick and choose what facts and opinions they want to see and then move on. They may loose all their credibillity in the process - that's a risk they appear happy to make. Anonymous · April 9, 2008 01:54 PM Jamie, I view news (and blogs) strictly as entertainment sources. Iraq has nothing to do with objective truth anyways. The devout who want to continue their religious war forever on one side vs. America's mounting federal debt on the other. Why should I worry how it's "reported" when we'll be too broke to continue the slaughter of them foreign non-believers in a few years. alphie · April 9, 2008 10:47 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "Dress for success" only gets you chump change!
• The moral authority of Glenn Greenwald. (And the moral derangement of John Yoo.) • North Dakota Discovery - 200 Bn Bbl Of Oil • Meaningless news, but it's "surprising" • The aberration routine • Debacle In Denver • A Shortage Of Power • Fake Wisdom • Unfair comparison • Making the "humane" as inhumane as humanly possible?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
John McCain has always been a champion of an uncensored free press - even in time of war. He has often cited the movie "Paths of Glory" as a n example of why this is important. By coincidence, "Paths of Glory" is on the Turner Movie Channel on April 27. It is about the Battle of Verdum, and dumb things that happened there that could not have happened if France hadn't had strict press censorship at the time. It is worth seeing.