My first post will deal with how one reporter slanted his article against Bush and for Democrats. On Nov. 14th 2005 my comcast home page carried an article by a Terence Hunt, AP White House Correspondent which reported on Bush's first real defense of the Iraq war.
His first paragraph starts with: "ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska - President Bush escalated the bitter debate over the Iraq war..."
When there is a debate, two sides usually express their views and let observers decide. But when Bush responds to critics he's not debating, he's "escalating." Also, notice the use of the word "bitter." It's an adjective that carries a negative connotation, something bad, undesirable, unwanted. So by "escalating" the "bitter" Bush is increasing the bad, undesirable etc. In other words, Bush is making things worse.
Now let's continue that sentence: "...on Monday, hurling back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world."
Now we see that Bush is "hurling" while the Democrats are only "criticizing" and "expressing worries." (What an animal that Bush is!) And what's up with the "once expressed" bit? Does this mean the Dems only "expressed worries" once and then shut up and never said anything again?
(Sigh) If you think Mr. Hunt is stretching the truth here you'd be right. Nevertheless, it is the truth; the Dems did "express worries" once--just before the other hunert thousand times.
Mr. Hunt continues: "'They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now,' Bush charged." Mr. Hunt could have used "Bush said" or "Bush claimed" if he wanted to be matter-of-factual about it but he chose the more aggressive "Bush charged."
And: "Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rational for war."
So, accusing the president of manipulating, withholding and misleading is not attacking, but responding to that non-attack is attacking!
In the sub-conscious or even the semi-conscious mind of a casual reader certain images will be associated: Bush = "escalating," "hurling," "charging," "attacking" which equals aggressive, violent, uncivil and dangerous. Democrats= "debate,""criticize," "express worries," "accuse" which equals peaceful, discourse, concern and civility.
Mr. Hunt obviously wanted to get his readers in the proper anti-Bush frame of mind early in this article. He is good at it. There are lots of ways to slant an article and I'll post them when I see them.
I enjoyed this post immensely, probably because it fits my viewpoint to a T. And possibly because I grew up in Michigan (Freeland, near Saginaw) and lived in the Midwest most of my life.
We can probably write off most of the MSM in years to come, as bloggers and "alternate media" gradually supercede them. You probably know that the NYT is losing subscribers and stock share value, and that's good.
How did I learn about your blog?
From a good friend in UT, who found it in "Matt May's website,"
which I've conveniently forgotten
the specifics of.
I finally figured out how to search your old posts! (wasn't there a topic on HBL about poorly designed websites!?!)
Anyway, just wanted to say I loved the way you spelt "hunert". Cracked me right up!
Post a Comment