|
 |
||||
| TURNING A
PHRASE The Prostitution of the War on Terrorism By Media Giants by Judith Haney USNEWSLINK/December 9, 2001 But what makes me think all that ink and airspace is so much hot air is this: when they turn their phrases they "redefine" the issues and reinvent the argument to suit their various political agendas. And in so doing, in my opinion, they are spending their credibility recklessly. The Washington Post's recent editorial, "The Ashcroft Smear" is an example of journalistic over-simplification of Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6, 2001. Much of the hard to digest meat was left out of the stew (argument) and factual issues were replaced with easy to swallow mashed potatoes and a little gravy (rhetoric). Then last week syndicated columnist, Molly Ivins, wrote "Is Ashcroft safe and sane? - With all due respect, of course, and God Bless America too, has anyone considered the possibility that the attorney general is becoming unhinged?". While Molly was entertaining in her phraseology, she failed to inform her readers of facts surrounding Ashcroft's job performance. I like Molly (most of the time). After all it was she who gave life to that "other" name for George W. Bush #43, i.e., "Shrub", after former Texas governor, Anne Richards, irreverently anointed Bush with the handle during her ill-fated re-election campaign of 1994. BUT, has Molly been sniffing too much cough syrup? Why on earth would she spend her sizable credibility with such silliness as accusing Ashcroft of being insane? Speaking as a professional nose tweaker, I can appreciate a good stand-off, particularly with a religious zealot, BUT, calling Ashcroft insane was over the top, even by my low standards! In today's Sacramento Bee, the publisher decided to print an editorial, "Contemptible: Ashcroft suspends civil liberties logic". But, in fact, there was no meat on the bones, just a rehash of what has already been said. Flash over substance. Once again, editor/publisher credibility spent and for what? Then there's the New York Times editorial of December 2, 2001, Justice Deformed: War and the Constitution. The Times defended their criticism of Ashcroft by describing their intent as "reasonable" discourse. The piece's thesis, i.e., America is challenged to "do the right thing" during times of crisis, has a sub-thesis, i.e., let's take the moral high ground and make Ashcroft look like a chump...again. This is pure old yellow journalism at its worst. I am ashamed for the NY Times, a newspaper I read everyday of my life. I watched General Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and what I saw and heard was not the same thing that others, "apparently" saw and heard. What I heard was exactly what Ashcroft has been saying since Bush signed Executive Order: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. This is not to say I like it, respect it, agree with it, or have other ideas about how to accomplish the task. My thesis here is this: Ashcroft is following Bush's dictate in the executive order and he is taking heat as a Bush Administration scapegoat. But think of this - what's he supposed to do? I don't have the answer, but I do believe that Ashcroft has the right to defend himself and state his case and confront those who would seek to redefine his actions without taking even more heat for doing so, i.e., Justice Dept. Blasts Reports on Ashcroft Hearing. As a consumer of editorial comment I am craving some friendly debate about options and alternatives to the Bush Executive Order. If we can all be patient, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide "some" of these issues in lieu of a lawsuit filed last week seeking information about detainees. But in the meantime, I frankly believe that the rhetoric about Ashcroft has gotten irresponsibly and maliciously out of hand. The editors of major American newspapers have a responsibility to get it right ALL THE TIME! Their limitless opportunities to shape public opinion should be carefully preserved, not spent recklessly. But, thus far, they are not getting it right. In truth, they are not even trying to get it right. Instead they are distorting the truth and manipulating their phrases. And in so doing, they are embarrassing the entire American journalistic community who are standing by and watching their editors and publishers engage in "Drudge-like" perversion(s). In recent days, American newspaper editors and publishers have lost their claim to the moral high ground by turning their phrases to suit their political agendas and by gratuitously heaping unwarranted and malicious criticism upon Attorney General John Ashcroft. These irresponsible employees of corporate media consortia are laboring under the assumption that they are insulated from accountability as they resort to unethical journalistic tactics geared toward increasing readership and year-end revenues in the middle of a nationwide recession. Instead of prostituting their credibility to make a buck, they should re-examine their tactics and replace them with reasonable discourse. But in any case, they should stop with the Ashcroft character assassination(s). It serves no purpose whatsoever except to undermine the profession of journalism. |
|||||
