Media Criticism

There are few things I dislike more than when President Bush tries to make an historical analogy and fails miserably. Bush gave a speech yesterday at the VFW annual convention in Kansas City where he compared the push for withdrawal in Iraq to a similar push at the end of America’s involvement in Vietnam. He made a similarly strained comparison between the Iraq War and the American Revolution after Fourth of July 2007. I cannot wait for the president to compare Iraq and the Mexican-American War or the French-Indian War.

While the analogy sounds great and draws applause from some conservatives, most reasonable people know that it rings hollow. I heard numerous programs on Wisconsin Public Radio (I live in Milwaukee) where the experts were trying to hide their bile for such a poorly constructed argument. Cheney, Bush and their group of spokespeople have denounced this comparison for years now because it denotes failure. I am convinced that the orchestration of this turn by the Bush Administration was the swan song of former puppeteer Karl Rove. The dynamics of surrounding nations was different in Vietnam as it is in Iraq even though war supporters have tried to cast the former as a defeat to communism and the latter as a failure against terrorism. Bush’s speech exposed his fatal flaw which is his inability to see the gray between black and white.

Alright, this is a bit conspiracy-theorist and I don’t completely believe that. I am having an issue, however, with the way Bush’s speech at the VFW was framed all week. Every time you saw an article on Hillary Clinton speaking at the event, it would indicate that President Bush would sweep in at the end of the week as a conservative salve for veterans. While the speech was recognized as a mixed blessing by most accounts, media outlets all over the country have subconsciously helped set up Bush’s effort to recast the war as a mission of American promise. As a nation, we need to look back the faux intellectualism that is inherent in making a comparison between past and present events to keep Republicans and war Democrats honest.

The media’s new baby is going above and beyond their journalistic duties to expose the issue of global warming. It is refreshing that the media has gone from zero to environmentalist in a hurry but a new Foreign Policy article exposes one of the more insidious results of the “green press.� Global warming is the new Communism and every side is girding their defenses to protect their natural resources interests.

The point of the Foreign Policy article is that the expansion of interest in global warming by world leaders has turned a substantive issue into a tool against tyranny. The military and civilian leaders alike have claimed that melting ice caps and desertification will lead to anarchy in lesser states. These assumptions make people in Africa and Asia seem like brutes in a way that is all too familiar in these areas. I think the point that Foreign Policy makes most effectively is that an overwhelming supply of natural resources are more dangerous than a dearth of resources.

The press has picked up on this new global antagonism because newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post need to stay current. The excitement over global warming has made editors and writers fall over each other on their way toward the top of the green mountain top. We need papers to write editorials on a regular basis denouncing this disturbing use of environmentalism as a way of creating a new breach between the developed and developing worlds. If we are going to solve climate change issues, our journalists need to break through the same garbage we went through in the Cold War to cultivate the moment of promise we have in front of us.

This morning’s Washington Post article on Iraq seems disjointed at best. It begins with a description of a recent attack in Kirkuk, but it then degenerates into a haphazard conglomeration of facts and quotations about the war.

This type of reporting makes it difficult for the reader to get a clear picture of the war. On one hand, it quotes statistics that indicate civilian deaths are down, and the article seems to indicate that US control of the country is rising. On the other hand, the main focus of the article–the recent bombing–indicates a civil war of increasing intensity.

However, there is a certain advantage to fact-heavy reporting. A more coherent article would focus on either the US military gains or the regional ethnic conflicts. The result of such an article would be a more distorted perception of the war; at least the random back-and-forth of this article denies the reader the ease of an easy answer to the war.

Maybe that’s why it’s so frustrating to read.

Iraq, Kirkuk, Bombing, Washington Post