A recent spate of headlines has my hackles up, and brings again to light that the media’s job nowadays it not to be informative but provocative.
Answers do not get people turning the page nearly as well as questions. Questions that make you scared or angry, doubly so. Check out the questions these raise:
It seems like, their noses wet with the blood from the VA tragedy, the media is more eager than ever to keep the frenzy going. For neither of these headlines tell the whole story – only enough to get the pulse racing.
First off, in Giuliani’s statements, he doesn’t mention a “new 9/11″. And his comments are more about Democrats wanting to go on the defensive, and the defensive being the wrong stance. But the writer makes sure that the readers think he’s going right for the other party’s jugular with great, gory jaws of generalization, using statements like this:
“If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses
and it will go on longer.”
Now in actuality, he hadn’t yet mentioned a Democratic president. Which means, in actuality, without writer Roger Simon’s slant, Rudi said:
“If we are on defense, we will have more losses and with will go on longer.”
Not nearly so stimulating as a full-frontal attack on another party, using threats of dooming America, now is it?
On the other side of the aisle, the Pelosi article makes one think she’s snubbing Petraeus totally, as if a Versailles artiso not deigning to receive him at her court.
But the article at least goes on to admit:
A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with
Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation
lasted 30 minutes.
…before returning to stirring the political pot to a fever pitch with fiery statements about her actions.
Now, granted, Nancy better have a damn good excuse. For the sake of her own integrity, if not for her party’s. Unanimous approval of Gen. Petraeus – if the Democrats’ actions as a party are any indication – meant only that they all agreed on him to be their sacrificial animal. There’s been no support for his plan or him since.
I would posit that they unanimously approved him because they don’t care who captains a ship they’re going to sink. They’re opening the shuttlecocks on “Bush’s war” anyway.
But regardless of the conflict between the Democrats’ stance on the war and Petraeus’, Pelosi did not show utter disinterest in meeting with him. What kind of good news would that make, though?
This has been endemic for awhile, but recent years – particularly the Iraq conflict – has brought the media’s ravenous appetite for discord and decay to levels that threaten the course of human events.
The media shoved the case for the Iraq war down our throats, even though they knew full well of reports that contradicted the Bush administration’s evidence and of prominent strategians speaking out about the dangers of occupying the country. They did this because violence sells. And that means the only thing better than a war with a clean ending is a war that doesn’t end.
Let’s face it, World War II was a “good war” for this country, if such a thing as a good war is possible. But not for the media. Not like Vietnam. In Vietnam, the media became aware that they could not only exploit the endless cycle of violence to sell more papers with gore than with greatness, they could also direct the course of events.
Yes, we should challenge our leaders. But it is increasingly important to challenge the institution that would lead us to opinions about them.