2008 Woodie Awards
Think!
Believing Lies
By: Adam Henson
Issue date: 3/22/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
As the War in Iraq rolls into its fourth year this week, it seems the news is and has been dominated by it. Of course that is obvious, it is war. The evening news, major daily newspapers and the Internet are swamped with the bloody images and gruesome stories of conflict and strife, the struggle for a better life, or at least a continued life, and the commentary of lazy reporters half a world away. I fit into that last category.
War is truly a reporter's dream, not to sound brutal or inhumane, but it offers the crucial elements that make any story interesting - internal conflict, strife, a clear-cut winner and a definite loser. It provides the reporter an outlet for political criticism, social debate and moral crusading. Really, what reporter wouldn't want to be assigned to a story like that? And so it is the news is swamped with the details of the day's actions, the causality lists and expert strategy analysis from the first 'expert' to walk into the newsroom.
In reality it is amazing to me that our soldiers are still fighting, the president is remaining steadfast in his commitment to action and total anarchy hasn't yet brought down America's long-standing political institutions. Then I remember this conflict isn't happening in Vietnam and it isn't 1969. Colleges aren't being closed because students find the government's actions intolerable. Instead, the American public has endured some 30 plus years of bloody evening newscasts. War has become a hallmark the human race, it is inevitable and we as a nation are immune to the sight of it.
It seems to me the media is the only real winner in this situation. They, or maybe we, get to have our cake and eat it too as the saying goes. Granted, I think any editor or on-air anchor would find that opinion gruesome, but I see it as a reality.
With war, there is no shortage of front-page material or a real worry about what the top story at 6 p.m. is going to be, there is a war on - there is always room for that. Columnists should never really have to worry about subject matter. With a war there is always something to write or rant about whether it be presidential criticism, who by the way really cannot do anything right, or the fight to keep young soldiers off the causality list or the way money has been appropriated. The list goes on and on.
That being the case, a resolution to this conflict is the last thing the media wants. Without it, reporters have to really work to find stories and columnists actually have to make logical arguments for their political criticism or moral crusading, well at least it seems they would.
An end to the war would be travesty for the media, their favorite politicians would have to find new soapboxes, and moral crusading just wouldn't have the same effect. They, or we, won't tell you that though, we want you to believe what we have to say without question. So we perpetuate it, we keep it going, all the while condemning the very thought of it.
Some think if the current administration were oriented the opposite way, the criticism wouldn't be as harsh because of a supposed media bias. I am not sure this is true. It might be, but I think the media has its own agenda. No this isn't a conspiracy theory that the media is actually running our country and has us all brainwashed. (Well maybe it is, if you really think about it. How many of us think the way our television tells us to?)
Instead, the point is this: people are lazy. Reporters, politicians, cable repairmen. We all suffer from it, maybe reporters the most. We are looking for an easy way out, a way to make as much money as possible by doing as little work as possible. That being what it is, a fact that will probably never change, it is our responsibility to sift through what the media tells us instead of accepting it lock, stock and smoking barrel. Why? Because people will lie to you, they will string you along making you believe what they want you to believe. Don't be duped, think for yourself.
War is truly a reporter's dream, not to sound brutal or inhumane, but it offers the crucial elements that make any story interesting - internal conflict, strife, a clear-cut winner and a definite loser. It provides the reporter an outlet for political criticism, social debate and moral crusading. Really, what reporter wouldn't want to be assigned to a story like that? And so it is the news is swamped with the details of the day's actions, the causality lists and expert strategy analysis from the first 'expert' to walk into the newsroom.
In reality it is amazing to me that our soldiers are still fighting, the president is remaining steadfast in his commitment to action and total anarchy hasn't yet brought down America's long-standing political institutions. Then I remember this conflict isn't happening in Vietnam and it isn't 1969. Colleges aren't being closed because students find the government's actions intolerable. Instead, the American public has endured some 30 plus years of bloody evening newscasts. War has become a hallmark the human race, it is inevitable and we as a nation are immune to the sight of it.
It seems to me the media is the only real winner in this situation. They, or maybe we, get to have our cake and eat it too as the saying goes. Granted, I think any editor or on-air anchor would find that opinion gruesome, but I see it as a reality.
With war, there is no shortage of front-page material or a real worry about what the top story at 6 p.m. is going to be, there is a war on - there is always room for that. Columnists should never really have to worry about subject matter. With a war there is always something to write or rant about whether it be presidential criticism, who by the way really cannot do anything right, or the fight to keep young soldiers off the causality list or the way money has been appropriated. The list goes on and on.
That being the case, a resolution to this conflict is the last thing the media wants. Without it, reporters have to really work to find stories and columnists actually have to make logical arguments for their political criticism or moral crusading, well at least it seems they would.
An end to the war would be travesty for the media, their favorite politicians would have to find new soapboxes, and moral crusading just wouldn't have the same effect. They, or we, won't tell you that though, we want you to believe what we have to say without question. So we perpetuate it, we keep it going, all the while condemning the very thought of it.
Some think if the current administration were oriented the opposite way, the criticism wouldn't be as harsh because of a supposed media bias. I am not sure this is true. It might be, but I think the media has its own agenda. No this isn't a conspiracy theory that the media is actually running our country and has us all brainwashed. (Well maybe it is, if you really think about it. How many of us think the way our television tells us to?)
Instead, the point is this: people are lazy. Reporters, politicians, cable repairmen. We all suffer from it, maybe reporters the most. We are looking for an easy way out, a way to make as much money as possible by doing as little work as possible. That being what it is, a fact that will probably never change, it is our responsibility to sift through what the media tells us instead of accepting it lock, stock and smoking barrel. Why? Because people will lie to you, they will string you along making you believe what they want you to believe. Don't be duped, think for yourself.