<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2008-04-19

Media Malfeasance: Even the Pope Is Fair Game 

The headline coming out of the media is something like this:

Benedict Becomes First Pope to Visit Amican Synagogue

Which he is, of course, so that's not so bad. But how about this one:

Pope Worries That Big Powers Control Decision Making

Wonder who he was talking about in that?

Except that he really only made that remark in passing. The vast majority of his Holiness' address to the United Nations was devoted to a thorough-going discussion of human rights, where they emanate from, and the responsilities governments have to uphold them. It's a wonderful speech, with a great deal of text devoted to the doctrine of "responsibility to protect".

Every state has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If states are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations charter and in other international instruments. The action of the international community and its institutions, provided that it respects the principles undergirding the international order, should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty. On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage.
[emphasis mine].

Rather than an argument that powerful states act too much on their own, it is a rather pointed call to action to prevent atrocities like the ones in North Korea, Darfur, and (dare I say it) throughout the middle east.

And I doubt you'll see the professional journalists make much of this quote:

Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian . . . . It is inconceivable, then ,that believers should have to supress a part of themselves--their faith--in order to be active citizens. . . .The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature.

Now, what part of the world do you suppose the Pope was talking about there? In exactly what part of the world are people denied the right to participate in public life if their faith is different from the "majority religious positions?"

Anyone, anyone? Bonus points for a Lefty who gets this right.

At any rate, the media has absolutely NO CLUE how to deal with a man whose Faith drives his convictions about the world. And, of course, they are absolutely terrified by the thought of criticizing Islam. But this Pope does not back down, even when he couches his thoughts in careful language.

What an honor it has been to have this great religious leader in our country for a while. What a shame we don't have the institutions to give him his due.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 4/19/2008 01:27:00 AM

2007-09-11

Media Lies--Here's What Really Gets Me 

A lot of very smart people have already written about the execrable MoveOn.org ad, so I won't add anything to those except to link them here, here, here, and here.

What I find most interesting is that this ad was run at all. When you consider that many of the NBC networks refused to run the ad produced by Freedom Watch, you have to wonder what the hell the media is thinking. Why does this ad not get put to the same scrutiny as the Freedom Watch ad? Sure, they're two different news organizations, but, c'mon. This is no longer an issue of mere un- or sub-conscious bias; this is blatant advocacy.

And, for that matter, have you seen the headline of the AP story regarding Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress today? Here it is:

Petraeus Outlines Troop Withdrawal Plans

That's the headline? Somehow, they missed this as a possible headline:

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.

Or this:

One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq.

Or this:

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.

The downright malfeasance of the media with regard to this story is breathtaking.

And, for that matter, how much of the actual testimony did you see this evening on your local news program? I would be staggered if anybody were able to report that they saw and heard more than 30 seconds of actual footage from the actual Petraeus/Crocker testimony from today. Contrast that with the minutes of footage devoted on what seems to be a weekly basis to the efforts of Harry Reid to convince America that we are "failures," or of Jack Murtha to convince us our military is "murderous," or of Nancy Pelosi to portray all of our efforts as pointless and futile. And that time doubles when its a Republican who waves the white flag.

And, yet, it feels like all complaining about the media is little more than howling at the moon. The media filter is so complete that even complaints don't get through.

Conservatives left the battlefield in the 60's, and we've never been able to get back on it. And, don't tell me talk radio or new media--they can only preach to the choir. They never reach the so-called "middle" of the political spectrum. Not like the "Today Show" can.

The GOP needs to begin strategizing--and implementing--a strategic, structural, long-term approach to massive messenging, or we'll never see an even-handed political debate ever again.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 9/11/2007 12:27:00 AM

2007-02-26

On the Dangers of Underestimation

There is, I think a real tendency of those of us in the center-right blogosphere to look for examples of media bias, for no other reason than to mock it. Look at any of the major center-right blogs. . .Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Captain's Quarters . . . and you will find many examples of pointing out media lies and misrepresentations, followed by a dismissive wave at the hand at the "dinosaur".

That's probably an unfair mass characterization--to be sure, all of the above DO attempt to take on the media directly at every opportunity. But I think there is certainly less direct advocacy to the general public than there could be. And while it is significant to continually point out to the center-right audience examples of media bias, leaving it at preaching to the choir is a strategic error.

How big a strategic error? Let me analogize.

FIRST: Let me be clear--I AM NOT CALLING THE MEDIA THE ENEMY, OR IN ANY WAY LIKENING THEM TO OSAMA BIN LADEN, AL QAEDA, HITLER, OR ANY OTHER BAD GUY. You have to read the whole analogy and go with it to understand me.

IF the battlefield of ideas is an impotant, strategic battlefield--and it most certainly is--than you can use a variety of battlefield analogies to understand it. And bear with me while I build mine.

Why weren't Conservatives able to argue that the War in Iraq is actually going very well right now, by any historical standard? Because the media story had become SO ingrained in the American consciousness that it brooked no room for argument.

Why weren't Republicans able to capitalize on a strong economy in the 2006 election cycle? Because the media story had become SO ingrained that most of the public did not even know there was a strong economy, much less be in a position to weigh competing arguments about the point.

Why weren't Republicans able to counter the "corruption" meme the Democrats ran out in September to kill GOP momentum? Because--well, one of ours was exceedingly stupid--but also because coverage of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley got front-page, above-the-fold for several days straight, while coverage of William Jefferson and other Democrats were relegated to page 6B. In other words, the common language necessary for a real debate on the issue was never a possibility.

In other words, every weapon in our electoral arsenal was rendered moot because the terrain of the battlefield was extraordinarily unfavorable.

To underestimate the effect of the mainsteam media throwing in, full-throated, with the Democrats, is akin to disregarding the significance of U.S. Air Power. The media, especially once it decides to pick a side as it did in 2006, is the force that prepares the battlefield of ideas. And, as the enemies of the U.S. Air Force have discovered, to disregard that force is to invite disaster--in this case, electoral disaster.

So I think the center-right needs to make a much more concerted effort to tell The Whole Story--going straight to the public to level the battlefield for Republicans.

Stay tuned for the "how" of accomplishing this.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/26/2007 11:31:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?