Wednesday, July 13, 2005

How to read the news

Hugh Hewitt skewers WaPo and it's coverage of the London Bombings. Honestly it's almost too easy. But it brings up some things to remember when you read/watch/listen to the media's coverage of the war on terror:

1.The "mainstream" (or I guess "established" is a better word) press will seek to rationalize and understand terrorists actions rather than calling them evil. They will search for reasons other than religious extremism and hate by trying to understand the terrorists movtives on a psychological level. In the process, consciously or not, make them out to be even bigger victims than the people they kill.

2. No idea, event, rationale, or concept that remotely shines a positive light towards Dubya will ever be reported without a sizable batch of negative sounding non-sequiters or red herrings designed to make the administration look bad.

You have to keep those things in mind while reading the paper to actually get to the news buried under the agenda. Honestly I think these biased reporters probably believe they are being objective while, in reality, demonstrating their ignorance of the definition. But that's not an excuse, they do a disservice do their readers with their irresponsibility.

Hugh cleanly demonstrates how the established media is perfectly happy making up news rather than engaging in real journalism:
"The cousin does not mention the invasion of Iraq, which is now 28 months ago. I can find no mention of Iraq anywhere in the English press.

But there it is, in the Washington Post --'inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war'-- without a shred of evidence to support it, but propped up by an ideology that refuses to consider any theory except those that condemn Bush.

Who are the 'mastermind' and the 'bomb maker?' When the evidence rolls in that they were 'inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war,' then the editors of the Post can have their professional credentials and dignity back."
Wonder why their circulation is down. Hmmmmm.