Those of you that have the unique pleasure of knowing me personally have, in all likelihood, heard me ranting and raving about the ineffective state of modern, mainstream journalism. During the days after the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq, I was heard saying, “Why doesn’t the New York Times just print, as a banner headline, every single day, ‘Where are the WMDs?’ What about ‘George Bush lied about WMD’ or ‘Colin Powell lied about WMD’?”
The argument from the msm and associated apologists is that it is biased to call the Bushies (or any politico) liars; it is assumed that politicians will lie. That is a load of crap. If you have a man saying something that you know to be patently false, anyone is within their logical rights (and if you are a member of the fourth estate, you have a responsibility) to call that person a liar. To this day, mine is a valid question, but this is not what is drilled into the American public’s collective consciousness. It occurred to me today that I wasn’t putting my 0’s and 1’s where my mouth is. That changes, starting now.
You will notice a new addition to the top of the sidebar: Mantras.
A mantra (or mantram) is a religious or mystical syllable or poem, typically from the Sanskrit language. Their use varies according to the school and philosophy associated with the mantra. They are primarily used as spiritual conduits, words or vibrations that instill one-pointed concentration in the devotee. Other purposes have included religious ceremonies to accumulate wealth, avoid danger, or eliminate enemies.Wikipedia: Mantra
These are key questions or comments, pertinent to American society, that until remedied should not leave the collective conscience. They aren’t all going to be political, but I’m feeling a bit feisty right now, so that’s where I will start, righting my old wrongs. If you have suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments section.
#1 by D on June 10, 2008 - 9:01 am
Patio,
Good post, however I respectfully challenge your claim of if “you have a man saying something that you know to be patently false…” I don’t think in first couple days of the invasion that you could say there absolutely weren’t any WMD’s. Unfortunately, this was a truth that we’ve come to realize as true much later down the road. But to say that he was “patently false” three days into the invasion I believe is a rush to judgement.
#2 by Patrick T. Lafferty on June 24, 2008 - 4:28 pm
D,
“patently false” will always be a loaded term and because of that, you have a point. If I wanted to be above reproach, I should have used the phrase all Americans know and love, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In that case, I would have said that even before the invasion of Iraq we (the federal gov’t AND the informed public) knew beyond a reasonable doubt that there there were NO WMDs in Iraq. After all, that is the burden of proof in our judicial system and as the Supreme Court keeps pointing out, even Bush isn’t above the law.
Thanks for the comment! Keep the conversation going and keep ’em coming!