I wasn't going to write about it. I considered it to be an unimportant story that was given much more media attention than it deserved. I changed my mind when Friday morning and this morning the local radio station I listen to used the following two phrases to introduce short news reports. Friday, "The mother who was made famous." Saturday, "He (President Bush) would not meet with." The individual referred to in each instance, of course, is the mother whose son had been killed in Iraq (doing his duty) who has been picketing outside of President Bush's home demanding that the President personally meet with her so that she can tell him what policy he should follow.
My first reaction to all this is that she has been made famous because the media has made her famous. The power they have to determine what is news and what is not news is staggering. Do you trust them to be unbiased? I don't.
My second reaction is "what arrogance!" Does she think she is the only person who has lost a loved one in war? When did she get elected to the Presidency that she has a right to make American policy?
She does have the right to voice her beliefs and opinions. She does have the right to peacefully protest as long as it is done legally. Just as we all do. She does not have the right or responsibility to make policy! She does not have the right to a personal audience with the President! Imagine if the President granted her request. Everyone who has a grievance against administration policy could demand to personally meet with the President to air his grievance. That is not guaranteed in the Constitution. The President would not have time to make policy. He would be spending every waking hour meeting with people who disagree with him. What arrogance on her part!
I don't know her motives. They may be as pure as a new snowfall. They may not be. Don't be surprised if one or more of three things happen. She writes a book. A made for television movie or similar event occurs. She runs for political office. People who have learned how to use and manipulate the press (the press does some manipulating here too) usually profit from it in one way or another. We might even get two books out of this. One by her and one by the divorcing husband. Won't that be exciting?
Then, I got to thinking (almost always a dangerous event). I started writing this blog, in part, because I disagree with the biases of the Peoria Journal Star and the editorial policy of that paper. Maybe I should start picketing in front of the newspaper demanding that they personally meet with me so that I can tell them how to operate their newspaper. I certainly can do a better job than they are doing.
Maybe, everyone who disagrees with the paper's policies should join me and demand separate meetings with the editorial board. Didn't the editorial board favor the President having a personal meeting with the protesting mother? If they did, they certainly can't deny my request to meet with me and be told how to operate their paper, can they? They can't deny any other request of a meeting, can they? Even better, since I've already started this blog, I should demand that they print my blog address daily so that people know there is another point of view that can be read. Do you think they will agree to that?
But, let's not stop there. The Supreme Court has ruled that mothers can murder their unborn babies. Fathers, even though they are equally involved in the creation of that new life, have no legal say in the matter. Every father or potential grandparent of a murdered unborn baby should picket in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and demand that the justices met individually with each one of them so that they can tell the court of their personal loss.
The court may not change their murderous ruling but they won't have much time to do any more damage to the moral fabric of the country. I like this idea. We have lost 35,000,000 babies. That is a lot of meetings. Do you think the media will give a protest like that as much attention as they are doing for this one mother?
Two more brief items. I also heard this first item on the radio today. The Democrats response to President Bush's weekly radio address included the following, "It is time to have a strategy to win or a strategy to get out (of Iraq)...."
News flash! There is now and always has been a strategy to win in Iraq. To believe otherwise is to believe our military is totally incompetent. Who goes to war without a battle plan? Anyone with any sense knows that battle plans are not rigid in design. They have to be modified to meet the changing situation. There is another side who is also trying to be victorious! These people seem to think that going to war is similar to going on a Sunday picnic.
Secondly, you don't tell the enemy your plans! Duh!!! Thirdly, given the intelligence that Democrats are portraying these days, you also don't tell them your plans because the enemy will soon know too. War is usually not easy especially when it is a war against terrorism. My advice to Democrats; stop complaining and work to bring a victorious conclusion to the conflict! We have already deposed a dictator, captured him, and liberated a country enough to have a democratic election. Join the effort to end this victoriously!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In the last post, I discussed methods editors can use to slant the news. One of which was using misleading headlines. Today's paper had at least two examples of a misleading headline. The first example, "Roberts scoffed at promoting Justice O'Connor." Without reading the story, someone might believe that Judge Roberts (the present nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court) scoffed at her possible appointment as Chief Justice (that was the issue, some reading the headline might not even realize the issue) because he thought her unqualified for the position or worse because she was a woman.
Reading the story, neither of those possibilities were the reason. He was instead trying to protect the appointment. A prominent Republican had suggested Justice O'Connor be appointed for a political reason--to increase the support of women for the administration. Mr. Roberts rejected that course of action arguing that a political basis should not be the basis for appointment to the position. He was right on that issue. (Today, some Democrats are trying to prevent Judge Roberts' appointment for political reasons. That is not a valid reason to prevent an appointment.)
The second headline: $253 million in Vioxx suit." The headline would lead any reasonable person to believe that the plaintiff in the case will receive $253 million minus expenses and lawyers. Reading the article changes that belief. According to the story, Texas has a cap on punitive damage awards. The amount that will probably be awarded in punitive damages according to the reporter will be $1.65 million not the $229 million awarded by the jury. That's a difference of $227.35 million. Would you say the headline is misleading or is it just technically wrong?
The power of editors to mislead as well as to inform. How many misleading headlines can you find today?
My first reaction to all this is that she has been made famous because the media has made her famous. The power they have to determine what is news and what is not news is staggering. Do you trust them to be unbiased? I don't.
My second reaction is "what arrogance!" Does she think she is the only person who has lost a loved one in war? When did she get elected to the Presidency that she has a right to make American policy?
She does have the right to voice her beliefs and opinions. She does have the right to peacefully protest as long as it is done legally. Just as we all do. She does not have the right or responsibility to make policy! She does not have the right to a personal audience with the President! Imagine if the President granted her request. Everyone who has a grievance against administration policy could demand to personally meet with the President to air his grievance. That is not guaranteed in the Constitution. The President would not have time to make policy. He would be spending every waking hour meeting with people who disagree with him. What arrogance on her part!
I don't know her motives. They may be as pure as a new snowfall. They may not be. Don't be surprised if one or more of three things happen. She writes a book. A made for television movie or similar event occurs. She runs for political office. People who have learned how to use and manipulate the press (the press does some manipulating here too) usually profit from it in one way or another. We might even get two books out of this. One by her and one by the divorcing husband. Won't that be exciting?
Then, I got to thinking (almost always a dangerous event). I started writing this blog, in part, because I disagree with the biases of the Peoria Journal Star and the editorial policy of that paper. Maybe I should start picketing in front of the newspaper demanding that they personally meet with me so that I can tell them how to operate their newspaper. I certainly can do a better job than they are doing.
Maybe, everyone who disagrees with the paper's policies should join me and demand separate meetings with the editorial board. Didn't the editorial board favor the President having a personal meeting with the protesting mother? If they did, they certainly can't deny my request to meet with me and be told how to operate their paper, can they? They can't deny any other request of a meeting, can they? Even better, since I've already started this blog, I should demand that they print my blog address daily so that people know there is another point of view that can be read. Do you think they will agree to that?
But, let's not stop there. The Supreme Court has ruled that mothers can murder their unborn babies. Fathers, even though they are equally involved in the creation of that new life, have no legal say in the matter. Every father or potential grandparent of a murdered unborn baby should picket in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and demand that the justices met individually with each one of them so that they can tell the court of their personal loss.
The court may not change their murderous ruling but they won't have much time to do any more damage to the moral fabric of the country. I like this idea. We have lost 35,000,000 babies. That is a lot of meetings. Do you think the media will give a protest like that as much attention as they are doing for this one mother?
Two more brief items. I also heard this first item on the radio today. The Democrats response to President Bush's weekly radio address included the following, "It is time to have a strategy to win or a strategy to get out (of Iraq)...."
News flash! There is now and always has been a strategy to win in Iraq. To believe otherwise is to believe our military is totally incompetent. Who goes to war without a battle plan? Anyone with any sense knows that battle plans are not rigid in design. They have to be modified to meet the changing situation. There is another side who is also trying to be victorious! These people seem to think that going to war is similar to going on a Sunday picnic.
Secondly, you don't tell the enemy your plans! Duh!!! Thirdly, given the intelligence that Democrats are portraying these days, you also don't tell them your plans because the enemy will soon know too. War is usually not easy especially when it is a war against terrorism. My advice to Democrats; stop complaining and work to bring a victorious conclusion to the conflict! We have already deposed a dictator, captured him, and liberated a country enough to have a democratic election. Join the effort to end this victoriously!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In the last post, I discussed methods editors can use to slant the news. One of which was using misleading headlines. Today's paper had at least two examples of a misleading headline. The first example, "Roberts scoffed at promoting Justice O'Connor." Without reading the story, someone might believe that Judge Roberts (the present nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court) scoffed at her possible appointment as Chief Justice (that was the issue, some reading the headline might not even realize the issue) because he thought her unqualified for the position or worse because she was a woman.
Reading the story, neither of those possibilities were the reason. He was instead trying to protect the appointment. A prominent Republican had suggested Justice O'Connor be appointed for a political reason--to increase the support of women for the administration. Mr. Roberts rejected that course of action arguing that a political basis should not be the basis for appointment to the position. He was right on that issue. (Today, some Democrats are trying to prevent Judge Roberts' appointment for political reasons. That is not a valid reason to prevent an appointment.)
The second headline: $253 million in Vioxx suit." The headline would lead any reasonable person to believe that the plaintiff in the case will receive $253 million minus expenses and lawyers. Reading the article changes that belief. According to the story, Texas has a cap on punitive damage awards. The amount that will probably be awarded in punitive damages according to the reporter will be $1.65 million not the $229 million awarded by the jury. That's a difference of $227.35 million. Would you say the headline is misleading or is it just technically wrong?
The power of editors to mislead as well as to inform. How many misleading headlines can you find today?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 12:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home