Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Political: Reason #4379 to hate and distrust the MSM

First, let me say plainly that I don't care a fig for Joe Lieberman's political future. Barring repentance, he will be eternally disgraced as the man who singlehandedly saved Bill Clinton's pasty white... self, by his "naughty, naughty -- now let's just move on" speech in the Senate. Ann Coulter said it best: Joe's always wrestling with his conscience, and his conscience is always losing. Lieberman is painted as a thoughtful, deep moderate, solely because he says moderate things, then votes hard-left. He's pro-abort, he sold his soul to support Bill Clinton and run for VP with Al Gore, and he was complicit in the attempt to steal the Presidental election of 2000. I pray for his conversion and salvation. But I have no respect nor use for him, whatever, as a politician.

Yes, I have an opinion about Senator Joe Lieberman. Got that? Those are my opinions. I'm telling you that, up-front. You can disagree with me, but you can't accuse me of being dishonest.

And so, having said all that, here is how the AP (Associalist Press) depicts last night's vote:
Voters in Connecticut turned him down, rejecting three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman for a political newcomer in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war.
Is that a true statement?

Well, yes -- in the sense that the statements "People believe that the earth is flat," or "Scientists state that the universe is XXX billions of years old," or "Scholars say that the Gospels were written decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses" are true. There are scholars, there are scientists, there are people who state and believe those things. Thus far, all these statements are true.

It is the intended implication of the statements that is untrue.

Not all people, not all scholars, not all scientists hold these conclusions. Some do.

And so, back to the AP. Did "voters" turn Lieberman down? Yes, indeed -- some did. Democrat primary voters in Connecticut did. No one else. And they did in a primary. He is still in the Senate. The final race hasn't even taken place.

And was it, as stated, "the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war"? Hardly. First, no evidence is presented that this was the motivation of this small subset of voters. But even if this opinion-expressed-as-fact were accurate for them, they are a subset of a subset, from a very liberal state.

And this is a classic example of what the MSM does. It is a biased opinion-piece presented as objective reporting. The MSM has an opinion about President Bush, about the war against terror, about our presence in Iraq, and about a host of other issues. That opinion colors their coverage, as they advocate and seek to persuade the public to share their opinions.

There is nothing wrong with seeking to persuade. But there is something wrong with doing it while dishonestly hiding under the pretext of unbiased, objective reporting.

The great motivator behind much political reporting today is Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is sheer hatred. And everything the MSM reports in the arena of politics should be read with that in mind.
He who hates disguises it with his lips,
But he lays up deceit in his heart.
(Proverbs 26:24)


Jeremy Weaver said...

I'm not really into politics, but I agree pretty much with what you've said here.

I'm just hoping this internal struggle between loyalty to the Democratic party and his conscience comes to an end with this election, and that his conscience gains strength.

It seems that the Dems have decided that they hate him as much as they hate Bush. I think it will be interesting to see how it all ends up, but either way, it's not going to be a lifechanging experience for me.

David Cho said...

Quantitatively speaking, you are correct that we are looking at a small subset of the electorate.

But other factors are at play here. Rarely do incumbents lose in general elections, and seldom do they lose in their primaries. When was the last time a senior Senator didn't even get past his own party's primary election? Not in my life time in California, so this is pretty significant although the MSM may be overstating it.

But at the same time, it is interesting for the media to attribute Cynthia McKinney's loss only to her antics with the Capitol police, not to her shrill anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric.

DJP said...

Oh, I quite agree that it was news, and that it was big news.

You do see that was no part of my point at all, don't you?

And once one goes very far in analyzing the significance of this big news, one ventures into opinion. A reporter could go there by quoting sources. If he's fair, he'll quote a variety. You know, "_____ said, 'This is a measure of the nation's anger over Iraq.' But ____ observed that 'it was a measure of the cowardly derangement of the Democratic Party.'"

If the reporter has an agenda -- as we commonly see in the MSM -- he'll only quote one side, and thus present his opinion as if it were objective reporting.

Robert said...

Yes, the media hates everything Bush does simply because he's not a leftist Democrat. Now, consider an alternative universe very similar to our in every way ,with ONE exception- the Presidnt happens to be either Algore or sKerry. In that case, I believe the MSM reporting on the Iraq war would be about the wonderful brilliance of the Democrats plan to bring democracy to the Arab world. And of course the Republicans (who tend to rediscover the Constitution and limited gevernment whenever Democrats are in power!) would all, according to the MSM, be "racists" for opposing the war, because conservatives obviously don't think brown-skinned people (those Aye-rabs!)can govern themselves.
Any thoughts?

David Cho said...

You are right. And the article doesn't even try to support their opinion with data (like X % of the Lamant voters expressed anger over the Iraq war, etc.) Drive by journalism.