I've already admitted that I'm a political junkie, I'm also a news junkie. I not only enjoy news programs and documentaries, I also enjoy watching the CSPAN forums where the news media gets some of their best and supposedly brightest together to discuss themselves. It never ceases to amaze me how the news media-types are so intractable when it comes to their "sources," especially when those sources are government-type sources or those always famous "unamed high ranking" sources, but excuse their own shortcomings and lack of common sense for the common good.
Last night, I caught an airing of Fox News Watch where four media commentators discuss the past week's news coverage. The one thing you can count on with that show is that at some point during the half hour you will hear Neil Gabler defend his liberal elite friends who don't have a clue and you will definitely hear the words "the public's right to know."
"Right to Know"
I'm part of that public, so the right to know must be one of my rights too, right?
When the "right to know" is trotted out, it is usually in conjunction with "so they can make informed decisions." The trouble with this reasoning is that most of us don't need to make the kind of decisions that the "right to know" information is offered to support. We have a representative democracy in this country and my "need to know" goes to how well informed I think I need to be to elect the right representatives to represent my needs with our government. This information does not need to be the daily inner workings of the military, it does not need to be the private conversations between elected officials and their staff, it does not need to be the pillow talk between friends and family.
"Right to Know" vs "Need to Know Right Now"
How many times have we seen the "right to know" excuse used, usually followed by a recitation of the First Amendment? Here's a news flash, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW partial facts, first impressions, commentary disguised as news, anything to do with our troops or troop movements until the after action reports are made public, the inner discussions of the President's cabinet, etc, etc. Truth be told, I do not trust a single news story regarding the military that comes from what we call traditional news sources. I do not trust some still wet-behind-the-ears nerd who knows nothing about the culture of the military or the strategies and tactics of the military, to present me with his or her version of what I have a "right to know." My same objections I have to the military reporting goes to the terrible reporting done about terrorism and terrorists. When you can read that the best source of Anti-American news is from the American media and American media-types make statements that they are reporters first, Americans second, I feel physically sick.
I'm a news junkie and I watch and listen, I read, I follow up, and I rarely come across any positive information that I need to know in order to make an informed decision. Take the Swift Boat controversy during the recent election cycle ... traditional media sources trashed the Swifties while they praised John Kerry. Now this is a story I have some personal connection to as my former husband, a carerr Navy officer of 30 years, was attached to the Mobile Riverurine Force in Vietnam at the same time as the Swifties and John Kerry. My family was personally affected by Kerry's Congressional testimony in 1971, so I tuned into this story from the git go. (My then 7 year old was told by his teacher that "God doesn't listen to his prayers for baby killers," when my son mentioned praying for his Dad, who was then in Vietnam.) I knew from first-hand timely recitations back in the late sixties and early seventies by my active duty military husband that the Swifties were telling the truth. Unfortuately, what they were saying did not comport with the "elite media" mindset of 2004 of what is my "right to know." In other words, the "right to know" seems only to apply to those stories that are anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-military, or anti-Republican or the big one, anti-religious. From my point of view, the public had a "need to know" about John Kerry's abandoment of his fellow comrades-in-arms, his anti-war and cowardly actions, his lies, and the total disdain those of us who lived those times up close and personal had for this man.
Does my "right to know" really have to include Michael Moore's warped opinions? A fat, sloppy angry man who got famous trashing General Motors and more famous trashing President George Bush. A better story for Michael Moore might be how someone with as many angry psychological hangups as he exhibits fell through the cracks and didn't get help as a child. Does my "right to know" have to include weeks and weeks of Scott Peterson's phone sex and libido problems? Does my "right to know" really have to include leaked secret grand jury testimony regarding steroid use in baseball? Anyone who has ever played sports or been around organized sports from the high school level has known about the steroid problems for twenty-five years. Does my "right to know" have to include troop movements and troop commentary while shots are ringing out all around the speaker? Does my "right to know" include false documents (Dan Rather/CBS) or completely made up stories (Jason Blair/NY Times) or books by Kitty Kelly full of lies, inuendo, and more angry people? And yet, these are the headline stories on the major news shows week after week after week. Does my "right to know" really have to include old, out-of-touch generals who do not have up-to-date facts or worse are still living in a by-gone era without a clue as today's high tech military and highly trained military troops? Ret. General Wesley Clark is a perfect example of a military-type that the media decided to endorse and tout. One had to do some concentrated checking of nontraditional news sources to find out that this is a man who was fired from his position because he was out of touch back then. What makes him a reliable source today? Nothing!
The "media" today wants us out of Iraq while at the same time wants more troops in Iraq. Here is a story where my "need to know to make an informed decision" is front and center. It is tough to get the information I believe I "need to know" to decide whether to continue to support our efforts in Iraq and the Middle East or to cut and run. Do you think we get the truth or enough of the truth to make an informed decision? I don't. Rather than tell me how many got killed today, I would rather have stories on how many went to school in a decent facility, how many Americans are contributing to efforts to help Iraqi and Afaghanistani women and children live a decent life with less fear and more fun and what I can do to make a contribution to the effort. I would like to know about the Iraqi colleges, the Iraqi elections ... how they are contstructed, the types of candidates, what the "man on the street" thinks about his country, Iraq, rather than about America and the troops on the ground. I want to hear about the types of media the Iraqis are establishing for their own country. I want to know what efforts are being done to help foster Iraqi national pride, because without it, there will not be success in that country. I do not need to know the litany of troop movements, troops scheduling and extensions as if this were a new thing in today's military. Those of us who have been around the military for thirty-plus years or more know that in war time, tours of duty get extended. In fact, I envy today's military families. Compared to what was offered to me as a spouse, there is no comparison to the way it used to be when the standard retort to any complaint was, "you knew he was in the service when you married him." Instead of criticizing the efforts, why can't we have more information on the positive moves that have been made?
It all boils down to a "right to know" vs "a need to know right now." I may have the "right to know" but my needs are based on needing to know what good someone has done or how successful a piece of legislation has been, not a recitation of the failures. Failure is a learning experience, true. Success is more important to duplicate, so why don't we hear about the successes? What possible good does it do us to discuss ad nauseum the failures of the past. Failures that came about because of the personalities of the players, the times, outside or unexpected influences, or sometimes just because we are human and humans screw up. Iraq is not a quagmire and the similarities to Vietnam are virtually nonexistent except that the players wear Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force and National Guard uniforms. The services of today are so vastly different from the services of 1968, a comparison is nearly impossible to make. Today's military are not a bunch of screw ups, druggies, noncomformists, enforced enlistees, or high school dropouts. With an all volunteer force, the dynamics changed dramatically. Today's technology and battlefiend technology have forced the military to set very high standards for its lowliest ranked members. The media misses this point daily and continues to draw conclusions based on what they heard about Vietnam from old-timers like Rather or remember some ivory-tower liberal professor, who never served a day, taught them in school.
I could go on and on here. I have equal rants against the media when it comes to how hamstrung we are when trying to discuss race relations, border safety and immigration, and elder care or my all time favorite rant ... political correctness. Instead I'm going to sit back here and enjoy the fact that my San Diego Chargers just won another one against Denver bringing them to 9-3 and a two game cushion in their diviision, AFC-West.
6 total comments.
Posted by ThaSickness:
Anyways, the media is coming down. It's time for the new media to eclipse them. Internet, talk-radio, Fox News.. why do you think the Left is so upset? Because their time has come because people don't like biased news.. especially when we're fighting a war for our very existance.
Nice blog by the way. Keep up the good posts.
Posted by Digital Camera:
Take the time to resource all the models out their from some of the most reputable manufacturers. Its easy in this day and age to spend too much for a camera since you can easily expect to pay up to $400 US for a mid range digital camera. This might sound expensive but these camera's are become much more affordable considering you can get a 6 mega-pixel for this price today and 4 years ago a 2 mega-pixel might of cost that alone. Times are changing and your best bet when shopping today is to be armed with knowledge about the specific camera you have selected. I have always recommended eBay because I myself have found deeply discounted items from only the most respected powersellers. If purchasing from eBay this holiday season make sure to select from auctions that are of the most trusted variety. I have found sites like www.bargainfindsonebay.com do a great job in filtering these auctions and only providing you great deal from the most trusted powersellers.
Many of you today might be on the verge of purchasing your first digital camera for a christmas present this Season or
It can be hard to find information on the right digital camera that’s why you should look at a Digital Camera Buyers Guide to make sure you don't get stiffed if you do decide to get into Digital Photography many people choose Kodak for ease of use and their lower price's as well Fuji Finepix which is another great c
Posted by boyhowdy:
Oh, and ignore that digital camera guy above me in the comment cue -- I think he's selling something :P
Posted by mikey:
Posted by Robert Riner:
I do have a right to know. Try reading a book, one that has been researched thoroughly and stop believing the lies that are fed to you by the GOP. Start with THE WAR AT HOME by Frances Fox Piven.We are the LEAST taxed industrialized nation in the world. The LEAST regulated by government. The smallest WELFARE state. The LEAST educated and the MOST religous. Get a grip on reality.
We have returned to the era of Robber Barons. Corporatations who abuse the public good need to be regulated.
Since we are the least taxed. STOP COMPLAINING and PAY YOUR FARE SHARE! GREEDY is a word that comes to mind.
It is FREEDOME FROM RELIGION as well as FREEDOME OF RELIGION. BTW, the founding fathers who framed the Constitution WERE NOT CHRISTIANS. READ A HISTORY BOOK!
Have a nice day. Too bad ignorance isn't painful.
Posted by Scott D. Feldstein:
I also want to ad this about the media. The charge that they are "blatantly" biased toward the left is ludicrous. Please tell me what television channel I watch to catch the liberal commentary. I'd like to tune in.
Comments