| Home |
PATH TO 9/11?
September 8th, 2006
Democrats seem to have successfully pressured ABC into editing its two-part mini-series "Path to 9/11" [FOX News], but did they cause themselves more harm than good in the process?
In addition to top Clinton officials writing to ABC to voice concerns that events depicted in the series were completely fabricated, the DNC sent out several e-mails to its members using words like "slanderous" and "fraudulent." Now, let's start with the premise that even a dramatized account of something as important and recent as 9/11 ought not to have obvious and significant inaccuracies. I have not heard any credible sources refute the claims that certain depicted events were in fact inaccurate. The only question seems to be whether or not that is acceptable.
Most dramatized accounts of historical events have to combine characters, condense timelines and paraphrase actual statements in order to have an entertaining and marketable product. But to imply that this or that public figure did or said something that they in fact did not do or say, and to further imply that such fabrication or action led to the deaths of almost 3,000 people, seems a bit irresponsible.
In that sense, quietly but firmly prodding ABC to do the right thing seems reasonable. Where the Democrats overplayed their hand, as they are apt to do, was in attacking the film so fervently and so publicly. It demonstrates their inability to link actions with political consequences. They are so focused on being right, that they lose the battle of public perception.
With all the public attention they have placed on this series, they have:
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the Democrats focus on the 9/11 series is that it distracted them from talking about much bigger news, a Commander-in-Chief who can't decide if Osama bin Laden is a threat. It his latest bin Laden Yo-Yo act, Bush quoted bin Laden 16 times in a major policy speech. This after telling a reporter several years ago that he really wasn't that concerned about bin Laden. That statement, of course, was in direct contradiction to his now infamous "Dead or Alive" promise to catch bin Laden just after 9/11.
August 30th, 2006
An unbiased, inquisitive media is key to a successful democracy. Citizens must be well informed to make good choices in determining which policies and political candidates to support. Currently, our media is suffering badly. While Bush supporters lament that the mainstream media is too liberal and his opponents lament the "corporatization" of media outlets such as Rupert Murdoch's ownership of Fox News, the truth is that what ails the media is not bias but rather inability and apathy.
Most columnists, journalists, news anchors and the like do little more than regurgitate talking points from both sides of an issue. There goal is typically to appear neutral by making sure that no side of an argument could possibly be seen as having any merit over the other. This type of reporting hurts accountability in government because no matter how badly one messes up, the media will always strive to leave their consumers undecided.
This stems from the same mental weakness that plagues much of our society. Weak minds tend to see things in overly simplistic terms. Being "fair" comes down to a simple equation. Make sure you make both sides look plausible. The best analogy for demonstrating how flawed this approach is would be referees in a football game. If the referees must call an equal number of penalties on both teams in any given game to avoid being labeled biased, then what is the point of having referees at all? Why not step off-sides or hold your opponent if doing so will result in a penalty not only for your team, but for the other team as well?
A similar example of the mental weakness in the press is their inability to usefully define concepts like negative campaigning. Every election cycle all candidates promise to avoid negative campaign ads. Inevitably one candidate will accuse another of running a negative and then all bets are off and we slip into the shameless, infantile ads we are all too familiar with. The problem, the press is too dumb to realize that "negative" is the wrong word. How could anyone run an effective campaign without being negative towards his or her opponents. Elections aren't about being a good candidate, they are about being the best candidate! And the only way to prove your are the best is to prove you are better than the others. That inherently requires the implied negative "He or she is not as good as I am."
So what do we mean when we say we want to avoid negative campaigns? We mean lots of things. We dislike ads that are insincere, inaccurate, irrelevant and insulting. For example, we don't (or we shouldn't) have any problem with one candidate discussing the voting record of another candidate and making an honest case to the voters as to why that record reflects badly on that candidate. However, we have every right to get upset if one candidate claims the other is callous towards children, for example, by taking a vote out of context (Such as when Bush attacked McCain for cutting breast care research funds, a small line item in a much bigger funding bill rejected by McCain for being full of "pork").
Rather than seeing the obvious, the media plays into the negative campaign misnomer, refusing to draw a distinction between legitimate negative ads and illegitimate ones.
Bush, Kerry, Gore, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Politics, Stem Cells, Abortion
|