Terrorism

Two of the 9/11 victim family members fighting the liberal bureaucracy of NYC for the 9/11 Memorial were interviewed by a NY Times reporter (the reporter clearly being careful in this case because of the personal and touchy subject).

Part 1 Here

Part 2 Here

An interesting moment to me was when one of the women representing the families commented on thinking that the NYC government would do the right thing, regardless of politics and other problems…

“At that time I didn’t think it would take so long to do the right thing… they’re going to understand the importance of this space, and the lives that were lost in this space, and the sacred and hallowedness of it. How can you not?”

The reporter pauses and thinks carefully how to frame the question she knows the liberals want to ask…

“There are people who say, [pause] that’s a little too intense. What drives you like that? You know, who do you represent? How do you answer the people who ask those kinds of questions?”

Must be people like the reporter, for her to have even considered asking that question. A little too intense? Yeah, let’s bury our liberal heads in the sand and forget 9/11 happened? Maybe the mean Muslims will hate us less if we just forget about 3000 dead and make it go away. The woman either didn’t realize the reporter was questioning her motivations, or decided to brush it off. She answered, essentially, a different question and moved on. But this is the classic subtle and careful craftiness of the liberals in the press. They steer and craft and mold a interview or story into something that seems innocuous but even slightly forwards their agenda, even subconsciously. The right in the press do it too, but their numbers are far fewer and they call themselves commentators much more consistently.

What we should all understand as we watch TV, or read newpapers (while they last), is that humans write the stories. And as long as humans write the stories, there will be spin. Period. Once you establish that, you have to figure out who’s spinning for whom and for which worldview, to even know what to make of the content. It’s too much work to have to second guess reporters all of the time.

I wish it was a by-line requirement, to establish your personal slant and angle of it. As much as I would like to deliver a neutral report in the interests of impartial journalism, if I were a reporter I know that the nature and subject matter of my reporting would be flavored with my worldview. It’s unavoidable. I’ve never heard a neutral report. Not once. It’s not hard to read and watch news and see the slant, left or right, clear as day. It’s human to slant. It means you care about it. It means you aren’t a machine. The problem is when reporters have a slant and try to hide it. They realize that an obvious slant will weaken the desired perception of impartiality, so they practice the subtle lean — an almost inperceptable tilt that seems reasonable and harmless but in the end leaves readers/viewers with the opposite worldview feeling strangely icky.

I believe some of the younger and more naive reporters actually believe that they can change the world by forwarding the liberal agenda through the press. There is a lot of preaching by liberal professors and others on college campuses about “making a difference” by controlling the language and thoughts of the masses. The best ways to do this is by choosing politics or “journalism” as a focus and career path. Unfortunately for this country, the conservative students, coping with little or none of the “I’m a misfit and I want to be heard” mentality, instead choose to go into private business and build the country. This is a blessing for the country, but also the curse that brought about the liberal dominance in the media now.

Anyway…