From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 14:01:29 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> For example, when troops find suspicious-looking containers of what
> might be chemical weapons, you'll get two reports: one will say that
> we found containers of what appeared to be chemical weapons, and the
> other will say that tests of containers found by troops failed to
> detect chemical weapons. The spin is different, but the basic facts
> are still there.
Unless the discovering unit includes an translator, I would think that
any barrel with Arabic (or Russian, Persian, whatever) writing on it
would be suspicious.
Neither of the example reports you give say the plain truth: 'Barrels
were discovered. They did not contain WMD'. So say you're an embedded
reporter with one of these units and it's been a slow day. If you're
female, the troops are asking about your decade-long porno career (see
Mike Wiener, aka, Mike Savage). They can't read the writing on these
barrels, you can't read it, it's 'suspicious'. You get your 15 seconds
on the news which means you keep your CNN/MSNBC/FOX job another day.
Meanwhile Joe Sixpack is sloshing it back with fellow hicks at the
saloon and says 'Yup, they's got dubya-em-dee! They's discuverin'
barrels of it left and raght!' (See, when the report is on, he's
thinking of her decade-long porno career too and not actually listening,
even if he could comprehend the report).
Just the fact that it's on TV makes it a true fact in the minds of many.
Some news show I was watching called the pilot who flew Bush to the
carrier a 'hero'. (Maybe he was: I wonder how many times he had to say:
'Please be quiet, sir, I must concentrate on the mission'). Jeez,
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 14:09:53 MDT