There is a must-read article in today's Slate about the incredible pressure placed upon the New York Times to sit on their scoop about the government's warrantless wiretapping program. This article was of especial interest to me because I have been teaching my journalism classes about the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model for the past few weeks. This story provides confirmation that the model -- despite the flattening and widening influence of the Internet -- still holds true when it comes to major, mainstream, "respectable" media and the government.
jaymill: March 2008 Archives
Smirking choad Charles Krauthammer said that Barack Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, engaged in "hate speech," spread "racial lies and race hatred."
He's not the only one. Numerous media commentators and reporters have characterized Wright's sermons as "hate speech" or "racist." Even Hillary Clinton agreed that the sermons constitute "hate speech."
Now, if I were a working journalist, this would be the time for me to go do some research. I would actually listen to all of these sermons and try to detect any kind of anti-white bias. I would look for any examples of stoking anti-white hatred -- any calls to exterminate whites, any declarations of white inferiority, any gross generalizations about the behavior or motivations of all white people. Because to me, that's what constitutes "racism" or "hate speech." (Of course, "hate speech" as a legal concept is ridiculous in the first place, but let's assume for the moment that it isn't.)
Have any journalists done this research? Have any of them actually looked into these accusations and figured out whether or not Wright is actually making the same kinds of generalizations about whites that, say, John Hagee -- who recently endorsed John McCain -- has made on the record about Muslims, Catholics and gays?
No. Of course not.
Ladies and gentlemen, the 2008 election -- like the 2004 election and the 2003 decision to invade Iraq -- will be won and lost not by the politicians, but by the media who cover them.
He's not the only one. Numerous media commentators and reporters have characterized Wright's sermons as "hate speech" or "racist." Even Hillary Clinton agreed that the sermons constitute "hate speech."
Now, if I were a working journalist, this would be the time for me to go do some research. I would actually listen to all of these sermons and try to detect any kind of anti-white bias. I would look for any examples of stoking anti-white hatred -- any calls to exterminate whites, any declarations of white inferiority, any gross generalizations about the behavior or motivations of all white people. Because to me, that's what constitutes "racism" or "hate speech." (Of course, "hate speech" as a legal concept is ridiculous in the first place, but let's assume for the moment that it isn't.)
Have any journalists done this research? Have any of them actually looked into these accusations and figured out whether or not Wright is actually making the same kinds of generalizations about whites that, say, John Hagee -- who recently endorsed John McCain -- has made on the record about Muslims, Catholics and gays?
No. Of course not.
Ladies and gentlemen, the 2008 election -- like the 2004 election and the 2003 decision to invade Iraq -- will be won and lost not by the politicians, but by the media who cover them.
I know! Let's have a big public outcry over a puppy and then completely ignore Mercenaries Gone Wild! This story's got legs, people. Four of them, in fact. Run it as a featured story! Americans will REALLY care about THIS big news out of Iraq!
