How will we know when a dictatorship has arrived? - PhillyBlog

lutton · #1 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 12:52 PM

Don't worry, that 'so-called liberal media' will tell us:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003284714

Quote:

How will we know when a dictatorship has arrived? Not from reading the Washington Post. The Post’s story today -- “Bush Signs Terrorism Measure” -- looks like just another routine report on the approval of a piece of legislation, accompanied by the usual “he said/ she said” balancing quotes.

The Military Commissions Act is widely seen as legalizing torture, but the article avoids any such mention of the T-word. Though the act revolutionizes American jurisprudence by permitting the use of tortured confessions in judicial proceedings, the Post discreetly notes only that defendants will face "restrictions on their ability to ... exclude evidence gained through witness coercion."

The lead of the Post article declares that the new law will "set the rules for the trials of key al-Qaeda members." A typical subway strap hanger reader might shrug at this point and shift to the Sports section to read the latest autopsy on the Washington Redskins. The Post neglects to mention that the bill codifies the president’s power to label anyone on Earth an "enemy combatant" -- based on secret evidence which the government need not disclose.

The Post mentions new "restrictions" on detainees’ ability "to challenge their incarceration." The article neglects to add "until hell freezes over." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) characterized the bill’s suspension of habeas corpus as akin to turning "back the clock 800 years." But, according to the Post, this reform is simply another provision in just another bill - and, anyhow, so many bills get signed this time of year.

The Post says nothing about how the new law makes the president legislator, prosecutor, judge, and bailiff. As Yale law professor Jack Balkin notes, "The President has created a new regime in which he is a law unto himself on issues of prisoner interrogations. He decides whether he has violated the laws, and he decides whether to prosecute the people he in turn urges to break the law.:

The tone of the Post article is akin to a bored broadcaster’s reading from the Teleprompter: "In other news today, the government announced that the price of gasoline would be reduced by seven cents a gallon and also suspended the Bill of Rights."

The Military Commissions Act is a stark power grab - but one would never know it from the Post’s account.

PhillyRunner · #2 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 01:01 PM

what does it say about media bias when a column in a prominent publication that covers the media industry (or at least the newspaper segment of it) complains that one of its subjects isn't being sufficiently devoted to *the cause*?

after all, what are we to make of the author's apparent rejection of offering "balancing" quotes. should the washington post only have quotes sources who criticize the new law? that, to my untrained eye anway, would seem a bit... um, biased?

lutton · #3 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

what does it say about media bias when a column in a prominent publication that covers the media industry (or at least the newspaper segment of it) complains that one of its subjects isn't being sufficiently devoted to *the cause*?

after all, what are we to make of the author's apparent rejection of offering "balancing" quotes. should the washington post only have quotes sources who criticize the new law? that, to my untrained eye anway, would seem a bit... um, biased?

Balance is a crock: facts don't have balance. They just are what they are.

PhillyRunner · #4 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutton

Balance is a crock: facts don't have balance. They just are what they are.

but it is possible to have balance among opinions as to whether the law is a good thing, and it seems to me that both you and this author are making an opinion-based point -- i.e., that the law is a *bad* thing and that it would be appropriate for journalists to treat it as such.

on the one hand, you seem to complain elsewhere that outlets like, say, fox news are biased, which suggests that you have some belief that journalists should be objective in their reporting. yet at the same time, this columnist (and apparently you as well) seem appalled that a news story could present the bill in a mundane manner -- i.e., without injecting what you would consider the appropriate editorial commentary -- reporting only what has happened, rather than how bad you might think those facts are. that just smells of hypocrisy.

there are many intelligent and well-meaning people in this country who know exactly what the facts are and who disagree with you (and with the author); a modicum of humility would not be out of line.

Michael Tree · #5 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

but it is possible to have balance among opinions as to whether the law is a good thing, and it seems to me that both you and this author are making an opinion-based point -- i.e., that the law is a *bad* thing and that it would be appropriate for journalists to treat it as such.

That's not what that article is saying. It's saying that, if the law might be a bad thing, the news should say so. It's saying that the news shouldn't ignore legislation that has the potential to have serious long-term effects on our Judicial system. It's not a matter of bias, it's of missing or whitewashing important facts.

When the head of the Senate Judiciary committee believes that the bill has profoundly bad effects - a Republican senator no less - then the news should cover the bill in more detail, and talk about what the impacts might be. By all means, include opposing points of view, but don't just ignore the issue. Cover the conflict in detail, don't just treat it like some humdrum routine bill.

lutton · #6 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

but it is possible to have balance among opinions as to whether the law is a good thing, and it seems to me that both you and this author are making an opinion-based point -- i.e., that the law is a *bad* thing and that it would be appropriate for journalists to treat it as such.

on the one hand, you seem to complain elsewhere that outlets like, say, fox news are biased, which suggests that you have some belief that journalists should be objective in their reporting. yet at the same time, this columnist (and apparently you as well) seem appalled that a news story could present the bill in a mundane manner -- i.e., without injecting what you would consider the appropriate editorial commentary -- reporting only what has happened, rather than how bad you might think those facts are. that just smells of hypocrisy.

there are many intelligent and well-meaning people in this country who know exactly what the facts are and who disagree with you (and with the author); a modicum of humility would not be out of line.

You ask humilty? For the GOP? Ha. Anyone recall "you lost, get over it" - very humble indeed.

BTW, I noticed you never refuted any of the arguements, you just attacked the article:

Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

Everything in the source is true and acurate. As I said facts don't have nor need balance.

PhillyRunner · #7 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

That's not what that article is saying. It's saying that, if the law might be a bad thing, the news should say so. It's saying that the news shouldn't ignore legislation that has the potential to have serious long-term effects on our Judicial system. It's not a matter of bias, it's of missing or whitewashing important facts.

First, the story does say so; they quote three different people to that effect: Sen. Leahy, Lt. Gen. Kimmons, and Romero of the ACLU.

Second, whether or not the law is a "bad thing" is a matter of opinion and query whether a news story should be endorsing the view that the law is a bad thing or whether the news story should do exactly what it did -- inform people that there are differing opinions without endorsing either one and let readers make up there own minds.

What seems to be pissing off the columnist is that he doesn't think they gave *enough* space to the idea that this is a bad law. If Fox News were giving the bulk of their space and time to military personnel or professors or politicans who all said that this law was a "good thing," there would be howls of outrage (though not surprise) about Fox's bias. Why should it be any different from those demanding that the law be treated as a "bad thing"?

Quote:

When the head of the Senate Judiciary committee believes that the bill has profoundly bad effects - a Republican senator no less - then the news should cover the bill in more detail, and talk about what the impacts might be. By all means, include opposing points of view, but don't just ignore the issue. Cover the conflict in detail, don't just treat it like some humdrum routine bill.

(I don't think it makes news when Arlen Specter disagrees with the Republican establishment.)

Moreover, if the story should cover the bill in more detail and should discuss what the impacts must be, I trust that you mean they should discuss both the good and the bad -- i.e., they should quote some people who point out the benefits of the law and they should quote some people who point out the problems of the law.

Of course, that's exactly what the WashPost author did, which suggests that your criticism is that the newspaper didn't devote enough space to the story. But, if I read the E&P author correctly, it wasn't just that he wanted the story to be longer, but he wanted coverage of the risks of the law to outweigh the coverage of its benefits. That doesn't sound much like objective journalism to me, and it seems hypocritical to the extent that one also tends to complain about the objectivity of certain other news outlets.

PhillyRunner · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutton

BTW, I noticed you never refuted any of the arguements, you just attacked the article:

neither he nor you is making arguments to be refuted. the author is simply saying he thinks the negative aspects of the law should be trumpeted more than its positive aspects. that's not something you can refute; it's just his opinion, which is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't belong in a "news" section.

Quote:

Everything in the source is true and acurate. As I said facts don't have nor need balance.

It's "true and accurate" that we've turned "back the clock 800 years"? It's "true and accurate" that this was a "power grab"? It's "true and accurate" that Bush is now "legislator, prosecutor, judge, and bailiff"?

If that's your idea of "facts," then there's really no sense in continuing the dialogue.

PhillyRunner · #9 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutton

You ask humilty? For the GOP? Ha. Anyone recall "you lost, get over it" - very humble indeed.

Also, why your obsession with party politics? No one said the GOP is humble... least of all me.