Media Criticism

Television news is rarely blasted for being too complicated; they manage to fit an entire day’s worth of information into a perfect 30-minute square (including commercials), and often they still have time to talk about Paris Hilton or Harry Potter.

The huge advantage of getting information with this way is that it requires no effort whatsoever. As long as I know how to use a remote control (sometimes more difficult than you would think–my TV has 3), I can keep up with the important goings-on in the world.

However, fitting everything “important” into 30 minutes leaves much to be desired. Television news often sticks to the bare minimum of facts and analysis necessary for understanding.

For instance, yesterday I received Stratfor’s Geopolitical Intelligence Report. Stratfor is an intelligence service based on in-depth analysis (forgive my plug here, but the free reports are excellent resources). Last week, Stratfor’s report declared that the al Qaeda that had attacked us on 9/11 was no longer in existence; the same day, the Bush administration issued a warning that al Qaeda was at full working capacity and warned Americans of a possible summer attack.

These two statements seem irreconcilable on face, but this week’s report clears up that discrepancy. Essentially, Stratfor argues that the small, well-organized terrorist group that carried out the 9/11 attacks is gone and has been replaced by a militant-style organization trained hold up in a firefight. As evidence, Stratfor looks at the recent terrorist attacks in Britain (carried out by “al Qaeda”) and claims that the failure of these attacks means that the old al Qaeda is dead. Whether this is because of the War on Terror, newly developed anti-terrorism techniques, or simply an internal collapse of the organization is unclear. Regardless, the al Qaeda that went undetected in the United States before September of 2001 no longer has that advanced capacity.

This week’s article also addresses yesterday’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and is gaining strength. When ABC News reported this, they simply reported that al Qaeda is back in full force and spoke briefly about the implications of a regenerated terrorist group.

Stratfor, however, looks at the issue completely differently. Stratfor argues that, on face, an admission that al Qaeda is stronger than ever is an admission of the failure of the War on Terror. If al Qaeda still exists today as it did in September of 2001, then our past five years in Afghanistan have essentially been wasted. An embattled administration barely able to hold onto one war is hardly going to admit the failure of another. Stratfor offers the key that unlocks this mystery: the al Qaeda spoken of in the NIE is a different type of organization than the al Qaeda that carried out the attacks on 9/11.

The difference between the two analyses–Stratfor and ABC News–is startling. It is not surprising that the ABC News report was alarming. People will keep watching the news if they’re scared, ratings go up, and ABC can sell more advertisements and make more money. Stratfor, however, is exactly the opposite; instead of running around in circles like a frightened puppy, Stratfor quietly argues that the NIE report is not as alarming as it may seem.

Interestingly enough, too, the Stratfor report makes the only coherent argument for staying in Iraq: if Iraq falls to Iranian control due to poor diplomacy, US political strife, and a hasty pullout, the region becomes threatening to western interests. Iraq may not have been a threat when we invaded, but Iran is still a monster we have yet to control. Unlike most right now, Stratfor lambastes the president for failing to make this key argument, not for refusing to withdraw troops.

Politicians and the media gain when issues like Iraq become black-and-white. There are two distinct sides with two distinct plans of action, and one will eventually win. This gives the media an easy story and the politicians an easy platform. If only the issues really were that simple.

Iraq, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Bush, Stratfor, ABC News, Media

President Bush today spoke about the continuation of the Iraq war in no uncertain terms: he plans to stay the course until September, when General Petraeus reports on the situation. This is also when the funding bill for the war is up for renewal, and the only thing more important to President Bush than political progress in Iraq is political progress here at home. He has been facing opposition from Democrats for awhile now, but high-profile Republicans are beginning to break rank. The war position is no longer tenable, and Americans want us out.

What’s interesting to note from today’s Reuters article regarding the war is the amount of unopposed anti-war speech that is quoted. Remember, many of those who are publicly coming out against the war voted for it in the first place. Additionally, until now, these leaders have been quietly voting to continue funding the Iraq war as it is being conducted. Why? The political fallout for supporting the war was less than the fallout for voting against funding the troops. Now, however, the tide has turned.

One year ago, it would have been detrimental for a candidate to be strongly anti-war. Now, congressional and presidential candidates alike are trying to get their anti-war statements into the paper. There’s nothing the journalism business likes more than seeing a president backed into a corner, and with all-time low approval ratings and all-time high anti-war sentiment, it’s not likely we’ll see the Iraq story anywhere but the front page.

In this case, the interests of the media and the interests of the American public are working together. People are hungry to read about the next move in Iraq which, in turn, keeps the issue prominent in the world of journalism. Sensationalism is serving us well today.

The controversy over the firing of eight prosecutors continues with Bush’s announcement today that two former members of his administration will not testify before Congress. According to ABC News, “President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons….” The article adds that “[c]ontempt citations against both women were a possibility.”

It is intriguing, to say the least, that the administration is going to such lengths to obstruct the investigation into these firings. It’s also interesting to investigate the way in which this news is presented.

It’s no secret that ABC News leans to the left. Left-wing crazies would argue that it’s perfectly fair and objective (if not a wee bit conservative), whereas right-wing crazies tend to lump ABC in with CNN and CBS as part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Regardless, the ABC article definitely disparages the administration’s move. The easiest way to understand how it does so is to read this article on the same subject from Fox News. Not only is the ABC article significantly lengthier and more detailed, but it also focuses more on the possibility of Meirs facing contempt charges. Fox, on the other hand, opens with the quotation regarding Meirs’ protection from subpoena and gives only a few words to the possible contempt charges. This then indicates a more sympathetic view of Bush’s announcement today.

However, I believe both articles raise the same question: why is Bush trying to suppress this testimony? According to both articles, Sarah Taylor (former White House political director) defended the president and claimed that he had no role in the firings. It is unclear why Bush would suppress positive testimony about him; he has enough bad press these days as it is.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out; it will be even more interesting to see how the media handles this controversy.

Article Source: ABC News: Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify