Rorschach Nation -- Where News Means Whatever You Want It To
It's amazing how one line in a broadcast segment can trigger an outburst of rancor and indignation. Less astonishing (but more disheartening) is how so much of it is made by folks apparently unwilling to recognize a full picture.
Video: The reaction PE has received from our discussion of Sharyn Alfonsi's opening segment to her "Home Front" series was quick, strident and, unfortunately, all-too predictable. You can read our earlier entry and watch Alfonsi's original story.
But to summarize, the objections and accusations of bias come from this single line in a piece on Marine recruits: "Politicians will argue whether the war and 9/11 are related." From that line, came reactions like these:
"The problem is this sentence is gratuitous and we all know which side of the argument C-BS is on."
"I find it simply amazing that the bigshots in television news just cannot get it! Your viewers are not deaf, dumb, and blind, nor are we all extreme ideologues. However, many of us are very tired of agenda journalism."
"You cannot avoid the paradigm through which you view the world. This little insertion is indeed factual but is an editorial comment that likely reflects the beliefs or issues in the mind of the journalist. I doubt anyone on the right would have thought to say that."As I noted before, what truly confounds me about this criticism is that the overall story was very complimentary to the young men and women undergoing boot camp at Parris Island. The quotes from the three Marine recruits interviewed showed them to be thoughtful and well-intentioned. Words like "scrappy" were used to describe them. In her talk-back with anchor Bob Schieffer after the package, Alfonsi said one thing that "struck" her about the recruits she met was "they were all less worried about their futures … and more worried about their families, especially their mothers back home."
If anything, the story came across to some as a glorification of these young, gung-ho Marines out to save the country and the world. Can critics focused on one line of the piece even fathom the fact that there can be a different viewpoint? Views like this posted comment?
Many of us do not believe that 9/11 justified the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Saudi Arabia, probably and maybe Iran but Iraq no. I, as a viewer, am offended that the MSM let the Administration get away with claiming a relationship that did not exist. If anything, I blame the MSM for the misinformation these kids are operating under.Having noted the unanimity among those she interviewed that 9/11 and the war in Iraq are "inseparable," Alfonsi simply noted (in a voice-over) that there is a political debate over that issue. In no way was her position on that and it was not something she asked the recruits to explain. To those who see bias in her addition of that line, I ask: Is there a debate over the connection between Iraq and 9/11? Are there elected officials, government officials and even military-affiliated experts who have at one time or another asked if invading Iraq was a necessary part of the war on terror? Would those who believe there is no connection have been right to claim bias had the line not been included?
There are many criticisms of the Iraq War coverage from both sides that are legitimate topics for discussion. Critics of the war harp constantly about the "cheerleading" role they claim the media played in the run up to the invasion. Supporters bemoan what they see as constant focus on bad news from the war to the exclusion of gains, positive developments and heroic sacrifice in Iraq. Both sides have good arguments and we'll continue to discuss those issues. But to focus on the meaning of a statement of fact borders on the absurd.
If I were a conspiratorial-type thinker who saw hidden agendas in others, I might think the harsh reaction to Alfonsi's story is part of a larger strategy. I might think that some staunch supporters of the war see in the polls a growing discomfort with the war here at home. I then might wonder if those supporters would be nervous about a series on a network newscast that sets out to hear how Americans are feeling about the war. And I might conclude that it would serve their purposes to brand the opening story of that series biased and anti-war. (I'm not paranoid, I've just got to stop reading Meyer).
But I'm not that kind of thinker. I'm the kind who will always try to give people, and their opinions, the benefit of the doubt and only ask the same of them. Gotta run now, the TiVo people are spying on me.