It seems NBC is now on a mission to locate anti-Islamic bias in America.
No doubt it exists. And I'm sure it's increasing. Any type of bigotry is wrong and the vast majority of Muslims living here in America have nothing to do with terrorism, al Queda, or 9/11.
Still, I'm concerned over a planned series on NBC's Dateline. Apparently, to show how Muslims suffer from prejudice, they are placing Arab and Muslim volunteers at places like NASCAR races. Since this is a planned story - it doesn't follow a specific incident - it, to me, shows how much of mainstream media views certain segments of the American public. IN this case, fans of NASCAR.
I have no problem with putting hidden mikes on people and letting them go do their thing and wait for a reaction. But to choose certain settings, based on preconceived perceptions, shows a prejudicial mindset. I doubt they'll go to Berkeley or cocktail parties on the Upper West Side.
It turned out it was without incident. NBC was wrong about its assumption.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Bush, Scooter, leaks and the legitimacy of the news media
For about two years now, we've heard about the leak of classified inforomation regarding the 'outing' of former US ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. If you remember, the Bush administration had said, in making it's case for building up for war, that Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake uranium from a country in west Africa, which turned out to be Niger. At the behest of the CIA, Wilson - who had been recommended to be selected to go by his wife who was a CIA employee that was 'classifed'. While in Niger, Wilson found absolutely no evidence that of any type of transaction was had taken, was taking would would take place. He reported back his findings to the CIA and thought that was it.
But the Bush administartion, in its push for war, still used that story to make it case. It was obvious to Wilson that the evidence was being twisted, so he wrote an op ed piece. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Suddenly, Valerie Plame's name was appearing in columns written by conservative commentators. (Ironcially it first appeared in a piece written by Robert Novak, a conservative columnist who happens to be against the war.)
This is a leak of classified information. The administration denied any wrong doing and the president himself said he'd remove anyone from his administration who was a leaker.
Looks like now, he personally authorized the leak. And hi administation is now saying it was no big deal. It wasn't a matter of national security. But wait -
When the leak occurred, many intelligence officials were horrified, saying divulging an undercover officer could put the officer's contacts and former contacts in a threatening and potentially deadly position.
And it also is a helluva way to thank a long serving person who reprented his country and volunteered to make this important trip.
Here's the problem though...this isn't just Bush. It's also the media. Now leaks happen all the time. It's part of Washington to advance policy agendas. But this is more than that.
it was used to help justify the start of a war, not get a bill passed
it was to push forward what may have been a lie as opposed to a miscalculation to start that war
it was 'personal' - done to hurt an individiual and not about policy
it was revenge - not a generic discrediting of someone, but one that could cause danger
it was done against two individuals who had been serving their country
it was followed by denials and denials
it was done in cahoots with the media
I'll say it: to me this story is huge. Absolutely huge. OK, a bit nebulous, but it shows how much the White House will go - using official gov't information - to discredit critics of the war.
Now that last bullet point is important. It's important because the media understandably (and justifyably) sees leaks as being an integral part of their profession. But the depth of the nature of this leak, and considering those seven bullet points I just listed leads to an obvious question...
Will the media that will now be covering this story concentrate on the reasons behind the leak (to help justify the start of a war), the content of the leak itself (revealing a undercover official of the CIA), and the reasons for the leak (to get personal revenge by discrediting someone)...or will they lay off a bit because 1) the media as a whole is somewhat culpable in this sordid affair and 2) they don't want the concept of getting "off the record" leaks to be sullied too much because that's the way they do business?
In other words will the media be more interested in defending the concept of getting leaks from which to report than investigating what could be a very serious crime - the content of the leaks? Will the media want to expose themselves as being 'used' to disseminate what may be lies that were used as justifications to start a war? Or will they now try to minimize the whole thing so as not to expose their role?
What do you think?
But the Bush administartion, in its push for war, still used that story to make it case. It was obvious to Wilson that the evidence was being twisted, so he wrote an op ed piece. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Suddenly, Valerie Plame's name was appearing in columns written by conservative commentators. (Ironcially it first appeared in a piece written by Robert Novak, a conservative columnist who happens to be against the war.)
This is a leak of classified information. The administration denied any wrong doing and the president himself said he'd remove anyone from his administration who was a leaker.
Looks like now, he personally authorized the leak. And hi administation is now saying it was no big deal. It wasn't a matter of national security. But wait -
When the leak occurred, many intelligence officials were horrified, saying divulging an undercover officer could put the officer's contacts and former contacts in a threatening and potentially deadly position.
And it also is a helluva way to thank a long serving person who reprented his country and volunteered to make this important trip.
Here's the problem though...this isn't just Bush. It's also the media. Now leaks happen all the time. It's part of Washington to advance policy agendas. But this is more than that.
it was used to help justify the start of a war, not get a bill passed
it was to push forward what may have been a lie as opposed to a miscalculation to start that war
it was 'personal' - done to hurt an individiual and not about policy
it was revenge - not a generic discrediting of someone, but one that could cause danger
it was done against two individuals who had been serving their country
it was followed by denials and denials
it was done in cahoots with the media
I'll say it: to me this story is huge. Absolutely huge. OK, a bit nebulous, but it shows how much the White House will go - using official gov't information - to discredit critics of the war.
Now that last bullet point is important. It's important because the media understandably (and justifyably) sees leaks as being an integral part of their profession. But the depth of the nature of this leak, and considering those seven bullet points I just listed leads to an obvious question...
Will the media that will now be covering this story concentrate on the reasons behind the leak (to help justify the start of a war), the content of the leak itself (revealing a undercover official of the CIA), and the reasons for the leak (to get personal revenge by discrediting someone)...or will they lay off a bit because 1) the media as a whole is somewhat culpable in this sordid affair and 2) they don't want the concept of getting "off the record" leaks to be sullied too much because that's the way they do business?
In other words will the media be more interested in defending the concept of getting leaks from which to report than investigating what could be a very serious crime - the content of the leaks? Will the media want to expose themselves as being 'used' to disseminate what may be lies that were used as justifications to start a war? Or will they now try to minimize the whole thing so as not to expose their role?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)