Powell, Travel, and Blatant Media Bias
I came across this article on MSNBC (actually from the Washington Post) which I think illustrates nicely how Republicans are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, in the eyes of the mainstream American media.
Nearly the entire article slams Powell for not travelling as often as previous Secretaries of State and somehow fills pages with what appears to be the same baseless argument -- less days traveled must mean Powell isn't doing his job. Only in the last two lines of the article is there any positive remark about Powell's efficiency due to his lack of international travel. If Powell were to travel more than any other SoS or spent days of non-business time sight-seeing, the headline would be "Powell Wastes Time and Taxpayer Money Seeing Sights." I wonder how many people are going to take the time to read the entire article through to the last two lines, and how many will simply read the scathing headline/subhead and think Powell is a terrible SoS. Deplorable, but entirely expected. LINK Quote:
|
I think it did hurt the diplomatic effort in the run-up to the Iraq war. The impression I got from Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack was that Powell could have done more travelling to shore up more support of European/Arab countries, much like Baker did pre-Persian Gulf War.
|
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the same henious anti-Powell bias in this article that you're seeing.
I count 19 content paragraphs. 10 of those paragraphs present statistics and the opinion of Powell's detractors. Among these is positive commentary about several former Republican Secretaries of State 9 of those paragraphs present Powell's own perspective or positive opinions on Powell, Bush and the current administration. Is this really liberal propaganda? |
I suppose that anything short of a full-on blowjob is considered biased by some. This attitude sets a standard that allows no criticism, which is a big part of what journalists do.
|
Powell is the only one of em that seems remotely normal to me ... a Secretary of State sounds more like a staying home role than a foreign policy role anyway ... i don't think this is biased, or even negative
|
Funny go to CNN,Drudge or MSNBC all are running the same story on Powell I guess the DNC fax machine must have been humming last night. I really hate stories spun like this one. A leading headline that basically recants the top 90% of the story only in the last paragraph do they explain reasons why. I don't know if its just bias as much as poor journalism trying to find stories. After reading it I am left with the comments who really cares and why was this news? Powelll stayed back as Bush did most of the heavy work on the Iraq crisis. I doubt Powell would have suceeded were Bush failed to move certain countries for well known reasons.
|
I agree with Apeman. When I read the article all it told me was that he hasn't travelled overseas as much as other SoS. In this time that's a pretty wise decision.
It even gave his reasoning as to why. And how he believes lower level and ambassadors are there to do the job. Makes sense to me, that's what we pay the lower level and ambassadors for. All this article tells me is how Powell defined his job and did a part of it. Seems logical to me. He's a man that has spent his time away from home because of the military now he can stay home unless he is truly needed elsewhere and has put his trust in others. He's not micromanaging he's doing his job and allowing others to. Where's the bias? I guess it all depends on what you are expecting from the press and trying to read into what is said. If you are a righty, you'll read attack in there somewhere, and if you are a lefty you could see this being a creampuff story on Powell. |
I have tried to word this post in about four different ways ranging from sarcasm to being an absolute ass.
NO Liberal Media bias exists in mainstream American Media. If you want to see a Liberal bias, you need to watch BBC News or read the progressive. |
Bravo, Macheath.
Seretogis, I enjoyed the conclusion that if Powell traveled a lot, the article would have been on how much he wasted money. I think the general consensus among the media is that the more our government officials do their jobs, the better. Thus why we see stats on Bush spending more time on vacation than other Presidents. The only complaint I have with the article is it does not discuss if Powell received more visits than other Secretaries, thus explaining his lack of travel -- he was doing it at home. However, your exasperated complaint that most would not read through the article to find the only two positive lines at the end was made most hilarious by Macheath's observation. |
Quote:
i would say the BBC is pretty damn unbiased generally - you can tell because whatever kind of government we have, they always feel the BBC is anti-them |
Quote:
|
Damn that media, always biased!
Wait... what does Fox News have to say about the issue? |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project