Liar! Am Not!
A few moments ago I heard an NPR news report covering yesterday's incident involving Donald Rumsfeld. As the supposedly-liberal NPR reported, his speech was disrupted by war protesters and later a man questioned Rumsfeld at the speech, accusing him of lying. NPR said that "Rumsfeld stood his ground and said he did not lie." End of item.
So, is this good journalism? What have we learned? Someone accused Rumsfeld of lying, and Rusmfeld said he didn't. Is that a story? Or even an informative headline?
Does it help me to know that one guy said "A" and another said "not A"? Is the news merely in the fact that someone had the temerity to accuse the Secretary of Defense of lying? That's not particularly new. Granted, this was a compressed bit in the top of the hour news summary, but really. It left the listener with only the knowledge that an accusation had been made, and had been denied.
Might it have been relevant to report that the accuser was a 27-year CIA veteran, who had been George H.W. Bush's daily briefer? That might help the listener realize that perhaps this wasn't just some uninformed kook.
Would it help inform to report that he made a specific accusation using Rumsfeld's own exact words? Might it have been important to note that Rumsfeld denied saying something which, in fact, he did say?
At some point, the mere reporting of "accusation/denial", becomes anything but objective. Reporting only that Rumsfeld was accused of lying, and he denied it, actively ignores the most important story. Worse, it furthers Rumsfeld's lies by not identifying them. By picking which facts are or are not reported, a supposedly objective story is actually quite slanted.
What kept the short text in the summary from being: "At an appearance yesterday by Donald Rumsfeld, a 27 year CIA veteran accused him of lying. In 2003, Rumsfeld said he knew where weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. Rumsfeld denied that he had said that, but was then confronted with his exact words at the time, discussing the locations."
Which is a more accurate description? Decide for yourself. The video is here.
The point is not that someone accused Rumsfeld and he denied it. The point is that what the someone confronted Rumsfeld with the truth and he denied it.
Rumsfeld's entire response is riddled with prevarications. Notice how he used Colin Powell's belief in his presentation and the President's belief in his presentation as some kind of evidence that he, Rumsfeld, hadn't lied? Did you notice how he tried to use the fact that our invading troops were afraid of chemical weapons to ridicule the questioner, and as further evidence that he hadn't lied? Deflecting attention away from himself seems to be a habitual behavior for him. As the astute questioner pointed out, all of that was irrelevant to the actual question of Rumsfeld's truthfulness.
(Did you also notice how the head of the Defense Department, which houses 6 of the 15 federal intelligence operations, claimed to not be in the intelligence business? I'd call that a bit disingenuous.)
Sadly, according to Think Progress, NPR isn't the only news organization that is having trouble reporting about this incident.
So, is this good journalism? What have we learned? Someone accused Rumsfeld of lying, and Rusmfeld said he didn't. Is that a story? Or even an informative headline?
Does it help me to know that one guy said "A" and another said "not A"? Is the news merely in the fact that someone had the temerity to accuse the Secretary of Defense of lying? That's not particularly new. Granted, this was a compressed bit in the top of the hour news summary, but really. It left the listener with only the knowledge that an accusation had been made, and had been denied.
Might it have been relevant to report that the accuser was a 27-year CIA veteran, who had been George H.W. Bush's daily briefer? That might help the listener realize that perhaps this wasn't just some uninformed kook.
Would it help inform to report that he made a specific accusation using Rumsfeld's own exact words? Might it have been important to note that Rumsfeld denied saying something which, in fact, he did say?
At some point, the mere reporting of "accusation/denial", becomes anything but objective. Reporting only that Rumsfeld was accused of lying, and he denied it, actively ignores the most important story. Worse, it furthers Rumsfeld's lies by not identifying them. By picking which facts are or are not reported, a supposedly objective story is actually quite slanted.
What kept the short text in the summary from being: "At an appearance yesterday by Donald Rumsfeld, a 27 year CIA veteran accused him of lying. In 2003, Rumsfeld said he knew where weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. Rumsfeld denied that he had said that, but was then confronted with his exact words at the time, discussing the locations."
Which is a more accurate description? Decide for yourself. The video is here.
The point is not that someone accused Rumsfeld and he denied it. The point is that what the someone confronted Rumsfeld with the truth and he denied it.
Rumsfeld's entire response is riddled with prevarications. Notice how he used Colin Powell's belief in his presentation and the President's belief in his presentation as some kind of evidence that he, Rumsfeld, hadn't lied? Did you notice how he tried to use the fact that our invading troops were afraid of chemical weapons to ridicule the questioner, and as further evidence that he hadn't lied? Deflecting attention away from himself seems to be a habitual behavior for him. As the astute questioner pointed out, all of that was irrelevant to the actual question of Rumsfeld's truthfulness.
(Did you also notice how the head of the Defense Department, which houses 6 of the 15 federal intelligence operations, claimed to not be in the intelligence business? I'd call that a bit disingenuous.)
Sadly, according to Think Progress, NPR isn't the only news organization that is having trouble reporting about this incident.
posted by Paul at 8:46 AM |
|
email this
