| …bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush… |
Where did this excerpt come from? Is it a criticism of the Bush administration, and it’s handling of the media for the last three years? Or, is it criticism of Michael Moore’s latest film?
I haven’t seen the film. However, it is clear that the film is biased; I don’t know how this could be contended. Obviously the film has a message; getting worked up over this fact is like getting worked up over Oedipus Rex because of all the incest—of course there’s incest! How else are you supposed to wake up your average Greek farmer some 2500 years ago and get him to understand the dangers of sleeping with his own kin?!? Michael Moore’s films are no different: they slap the average American in the face, for better or worse.
This kind of obvious “bias” I can handle. What I dislike is how carefully the “bias” is hidden in the rest of the media. For example, I read an article the other day via the BBC World News titled Ex-officials lash Bush policies. We begin with a strong statement:
| A group of retired US diplomats and generals has condemned the foreign policy of the Bush administration as ideological and callously indifferent. |
From here, the bulk of the article is comments from former generals, admirals, and officials of the government of the United States of America; it’s a summary and rehashing of their open letter. Consider: these are people who have spent significant time serving a nation—an idea—and they have a right to say when they feel their life’s work has been undermined. News sources, however, must present a balanced report, so a dissenting view must be found to balance things.
The entire article includes quotes and comments from individuals signed onto the statement delivered to the White House. However, the BBC makes sure they aren’t too biased, and close with this witty bit of reporting:
| Cliff May, president of the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told the BBC:
“Largely, they are people who were in senior official capacities before 9/11. They are people who are responsible for the policies prior to 9/11. “Those policies I think, failed spectacularly on 9/11,” he said. |
Who the hell is Cliff May? If they really wanted to “balance” the article, they would have asked a dozen current diplomats and representatives of the US government who are in some way comparable or equivalent in position and stature for comment. Cliff May, in this context, is no different than you or me: a nobody. Or, if you prefer, just another Joe with an opinion.
Opinions do not balanced reporting make. At first glance, you think you’re getting “both sides of the story”… and then you realize that you just slept with your mother. Guess it’s time to go pluck out our eyes…
Greetings from the Holy Land! I stumbled across this in a very odd way and thought I’d post a comment to see if you check it or not. If you do, please drop me a line! Tel Aviv (current assignment) is fine, an interesting change from Armenia, and with a much higher profile in Washington, for reasons I don’t necessarily support but you work with what you’ve got, I guess. Glad to see you’ve joined the expatriate world. Cheers, Ruth Anne