Equal time for any viewpoint?
Posted in Mainstream Media on December 17th, 2005 by kstevensVia Atrios:
“Muslims of America”
Andrea Mitchell last night:
MITCHELL: Well, a former intelligence official tells NBC News tonight that the people most likely to be swept up in this are listed in a Homeland Security database, Brian, called Muslims of America. But most people targeted are never charged with a crime. And one former official says this does amount to a giant electronic fishing expedition. Is it legal? The president says yes. Critics say no. Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter says his committee will hold hearings in the new year. Brian:
I just saw this on Atrios’ site and I need to do a quick comment. Since I have a lot of studying to do, I don’t even want to get into the substance of this story. Plus, its really just too awful for words anyway. I will, however, gladly take the time out to bash Ms. Greensp…uh…Mitchell:
Notice the bold part of the quote above. This is precisely what I hate about journalism.
I hate the use of the word critics generally. It diminishes their credibility and suggests that these “critics” will disagree with whatever the president says and does. It is also innacurate. From what I have been able to gather thus far, almost everyone who knows anything at all about the law believes that spying on American citizens without a warrant is completely illegal not to mention unneccesary. The only people who think it is legal belong to the completely deranged school of presidential infallability.
I am also completely fucking sick and tired of this “on the one hand…on the other hand” bullshit. It is this kind of “Shape of the Earth: Views Differ” fact-free reporting that I just can’t take anymore. Aren’t journalists supposed to try and discern the truth here? Am I going to be seeing stories that say:
“Is the government beaming radio signals into our brains to control our thoughts? Schitzophrenic says yes. Critics say no.”
Here we have the administration and some lunatic constitutional theorist(s) saying one thing and 99% of constitutional scholars saying another. Why the fuck do those two viewpoints get the same fucking mindless treatment?!
Rant over.