In his March 23 column, Lewis W. Diuguid, angered by e-mails "gloating" over the successful election in Iraq, shoots back and claims that the rationales for the war shifted during the past two years:
"Tens of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have suffered injuries in a war that Bush first sold as a way to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "
"The reason for the war and casualties later shifted to the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."
"The pro-war push shifted to giving the Iraqis the gift of democracy."
All three of those reasons were mentioned in the very first sentence of President Bush's March 19, 2003 address to the nation: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Diuguid has apparently forgotten that President Bush on March 17, 2003 gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, so the ouster of Saddam was an objective from the very beginning.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Jesus, amendment both silent on homosexuality
In his February 2 column, Dave Seaton of The Winfield Courier, writes, "As the Kansas Legislature capitulates to demand for a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage — and civil unions — we might consider what Jesus had to say about homosexuality.
"... Absolutely nothing."
What a coincidence. The proposed amendment also says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Seaton also writes, "The idea that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society is a contemporary idea. It is a good idea, worth fighting for." If it is a good idea, an amendment that states marriage should be between one man and one woman should be part of that fight. Instead, Seaton calls the amendment a "step backward" and claims the amendment "would leave Kansas a less open-minded, less diverse place."
"... Absolutely nothing."
What a coincidence. The proposed amendment also says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Seaton also writes, "The idea that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society is a contemporary idea. It is a good idea, worth fighting for." If it is a good idea, an amendment that states marriage should be between one man and one woman should be part of that fight. Instead, Seaton calls the amendment a "step backward" and claims the amendment "would leave Kansas a less open-minded, less diverse place."
Diuguid decries media's "slacking off"
In his March 30 column, Lewis W. Diuguid complains that the media have "slacked off" during the past few years. "During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the press mostly parroted President Bush and officials in his administration, claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction," Diuguid writes.
What Diuguid will not acknowledge is that claims concerning Iraq's WMD did not begin in 2001. The U.S. has operated under the belief that Iraq had WMD since 1991, and the Clinton administration continued to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the U.S. until its very last days.
Few journalists questioned the claims concerning Iraq's WMD between 1993 and January 2001. In fact, CNN's Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw in February 1998 even moderated a town hall meeting in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described the dire threat that Iraq and its WMD posed to the world. Neither Woodruff nor Shaw questioned any of the many claims made by the trio of national security principals.
If Diuguid sincerely believes that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. (even though it was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration), why is his criticism of his fellow journalists' "slacking off" limited to their reporting during the current administration?
What Diuguid will not acknowledge is that claims concerning Iraq's WMD did not begin in 2001. The U.S. has operated under the belief that Iraq had WMD since 1991, and the Clinton administration continued to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the U.S. until its very last days.
Few journalists questioned the claims concerning Iraq's WMD between 1993 and January 2001. In fact, CNN's Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw in February 1998 even moderated a town hall meeting in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described the dire threat that Iraq and its WMD posed to the world. Neither Woodruff nor Shaw questioned any of the many claims made by the trio of national security principals.
If Diuguid sincerely believes that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. (even though it was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration), why is his criticism of his fellow journalists' "slacking off" limited to their reporting during the current administration?
"Anti-choice" in headline (oldie)
The Journal-World on January 29, 2004 included this editor's note following a letter from a woman who wrote that the Journal-World should use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" in its articles: "Like virtually all U.S. newspapers, the Journal-World follows the Associated Press Stylebook, which offers this guidance: 'Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion-rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.'"
The editor's note is exactly right about the AP Stylebook. However, when it comes to the abortion issue, the Journal-World doesn't always follow the stylebook. Here's an example from the January 19, 2004 issue: "Disclaimer upsets anti-choice group."
After The Chicago Tribune published two separate headlines in 2003 that included the term "anti-choice," public editor Don Wycliff in a November 6, 2003 column apologized to readers.
"In either case," wrote Wycliff, "the flaw was the same: The perpective of those who define the issues involved in terms of 'choice' was taken as normative, and the position of those whom disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in 'choice' terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America."
When I talked to a representative of the Journal-World about the headline, I was told that since the article came from the AP, that headline probably came with the article. However, I was unable to find another media outlet in Kansas that used "anti-choice" in the headline. For example, the Topeka Capital-Journal's headline was "GOP flier upsets group."
As far as I know, the only other time a Journal-World staff member used "anti-choice" was in a November 1995 article, so it is not a common practice ("anti-choice" appears frequently in the newspaper's archives, but it is usually found between quotation marks). However, the Journal-World should have followed Wycliff's example and apologized to readers for publishing the slanted headline.
The editor's note is exactly right about the AP Stylebook. However, when it comes to the abortion issue, the Journal-World doesn't always follow the stylebook. Here's an example from the January 19, 2004 issue: "Disclaimer upsets anti-choice group."
After The Chicago Tribune published two separate headlines in 2003 that included the term "anti-choice," public editor Don Wycliff in a November 6, 2003 column apologized to readers.
"In either case," wrote Wycliff, "the flaw was the same: The perpective of those who define the issues involved in terms of 'choice' was taken as normative, and the position of those whom disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in 'choice' terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America."
When I talked to a representative of the Journal-World about the headline, I was told that since the article came from the AP, that headline probably came with the article. However, I was unable to find another media outlet in Kansas that used "anti-choice" in the headline. For example, the Topeka Capital-Journal's headline was "GOP flier upsets group."
As far as I know, the only other time a Journal-World staff member used "anti-choice" was in a November 1995 article, so it is not a common practice ("anti-choice" appears frequently in the newspaper's archives, but it is usually found between quotation marks). However, the Journal-World should have followed Wycliff's example and apologized to readers for publishing the slanted headline.
Heckling, standing ovations interrupt right-wing commentator
The Journal-World's March 30 follow-up article and accompanying cutline on Ann Coulter's lecture at the Lied Center included three mentions of the "right-wing" label, including one reference to Coulter being a "right-wing conservative" (as opposed to a right-wing liberal?).
The article also mentioned that Coulter promised "to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience."
The article also mentioned that Coulter promised "to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience."
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Alex P. Keaton strikes again
Yesterday I noted that KMBZ morning news host Ellen Schenk compared high school students who are not opposed to government interference in the media to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican in the 1980s sitcom Family Ties.
Today we have news that 21 members of Congress have sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin, asking ABC to remove Wal-Mart as the sponsor of the "Only in America" series on Good Morning America. All 21 members are Democrats--young and old.
Today we have news that 21 members of Congress have sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin, asking ABC to remove Wal-Mart as the sponsor of the "Only in America" series on Good Morning America. All 21 members are Democrats--young and old.
Keep it clean, you draft-dodging miserable failure (oldie)
During the early months of 2004, Rep. Dick Gephardt called President Bush a "miserable failure," Wesley Clark stood by and smiled while hefty-lefty filmmaker Michael Moore call the president a "deserter," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe echoed Moore and said Bush had been AWOL from his National Guard unit, Al Gore said Bush "betrayed" the American people, and Sen. John Forbes Kerry called Bush an "extremist." In addition, according to a blog on the official Kerry for President web site, Kerry's wife at a MoveOn.org house party in December 2003 handed out buttons that read "Asses of Evil" and featured the names of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft.
Given the harsh rhetoric Democrats have directed towards President Bush, it was nice to see a Kansas City Star editorial on March 4, 2004 with the headline "Kerry vs. Bush: Keep it clean." However, the content of the editorial was not quite what I had excepted. (Okay, it was what I have come to expect from The Star.)"Personal attacks and dubious charges will inevitably appear," The Star noted. "Republicans have relied on these attacks in recent presidential elections, and Democratic voters have made it clear this year they want their champion to fight fire with fire."
Further, "If [Bush] quickly turns to harsh personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, Kerry likely will respond in kind."
Kerry likely will respond in kind?
Given the harsh rhetoric Democrats have directed towards President Bush, it was nice to see a Kansas City Star editorial on March 4, 2004 with the headline "Kerry vs. Bush: Keep it clean." However, the content of the editorial was not quite what I had excepted. (Okay, it was what I have come to expect from The Star.)"Personal attacks and dubious charges will inevitably appear," The Star noted. "Republicans have relied on these attacks in recent presidential elections, and Democratic voters have made it clear this year they want their champion to fight fire with fire."
Further, "If [Bush] quickly turns to harsh personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, Kerry likely will respond in kind."
Kerry likely will respond in kind?
Ann Coulter is right-wing, right-wing, right-wing...
According to the headline in the March 29 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, "Lecture to feature right-wing commentator." "Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter has made a career bashing liberals and otherwise pushing political hot buttons," the article noted. The term "right-wing" was used again in a cutline and in a second headline on page 4A. Even the "continued on" line on page 1A invited readers to "Please see RIGHT-WING on page 4A." Coulter merited a total of five mentions of the "right-wing" label.
I wondered if the Journal-World used the "left-wing" label with liberal visitors to Kansas University, so I did a little searching through the archives. When Molly Ivins visited Lawrence in 2001 to accept the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the headline on Feb. 10, 2001 merely read "Texas columnist Ivins receives White award." The word "left" did appear in the article twice, but not as an adjective.
When Ellen Goodman visited KU in 1995 to receive the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the Journal-World's headline read "Columnist to receive award." Goodman joked that she would probably fall into Rush Limbaugh's "femi-nazi" category, but the Journal-World offered no label to characterize Goodman's left-wing viewpoints.
I wondered if the Journal-World used the "left-wing" label with liberal visitors to Kansas University, so I did a little searching through the archives. When Molly Ivins visited Lawrence in 2001 to accept the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the headline on Feb. 10, 2001 merely read "Texas columnist Ivins receives White award." The word "left" did appear in the article twice, but not as an adjective.
When Ellen Goodman visited KU in 1995 to receive the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the Journal-World's headline read "Columnist to receive award." Goodman joked that she would probably fall into Rush Limbaugh's "femi-nazi" category, but the Journal-World offered no label to characterize Goodman's left-wing viewpoints.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Gay marriage vs. same-sex marriage
The Lawrence Journal-World on March 28 included two front-page articles concerning the amendment on same-sex marriage that voters will consider on April 5. The first article includes the headline "Gay marriage ban poses unintended consequences ," while the second article begins, "When Bruce Ney of Lawrence was told that the Knights of Columbus dropped $100,000 into the Kansas campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage...."
These articles use the term "gay marriage," while the language of the proposed amendment makes no mention at all concerning sexual orientation. According to the proposed amendment, "The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
According to this language a gay man could not marry a gay man. However, a straight man would also be prohibited from marrying another straight man. In addition, as Wikipedia notes, "In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
While many journalists and readers might consider gay marriage and same-sex marriage to be the same thing, they are different. If newspapers want to be as accurate as possible, they should use the latter term when referring to the proposed amendment.
These articles use the term "gay marriage," while the language of the proposed amendment makes no mention at all concerning sexual orientation. According to the proposed amendment, "The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
According to this language a gay man could not marry a gay man. However, a straight man would also be prohibited from marrying another straight man. In addition, as Wikipedia notes, "In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
While many journalists and readers might consider gay marriage and same-sex marriage to be the same thing, they are different. If newspapers want to be as accurate as possible, they should use the latter term when referring to the proposed amendment.
Not all medical records are equal
In his March 2 Lawrence Journal-World column, Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law, wrote that Attorney General Phill Kline’s “attempt to subpoena the medical records of patients who underwent late-term abortions are [sic] troubling to me on other grounds.” Hoeflich criticized Kline’s action because it puts “doctor-patient confidentiality” at great risk.
An item in the March 4 issue of the Journal-World noted that DNA helped lead police to BTK suspect Dennis Rader. According to the article, “…investigators had obtained DNA before Rader’s arrest from a tissue sample that came from his 26-year-old daughter’s medical records. They took it without her knowledge.”
Thus far, Hoeflich has not used his column to criticize the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality regarding the medical records of Rader’s daughter.
An item in the March 4 issue of the Journal-World noted that DNA helped lead police to BTK suspect Dennis Rader. According to the article, “…investigators had obtained DNA before Rader’s arrest from a tissue sample that came from his 26-year-old daughter’s medical records. They took it without her knowledge.”
Thus far, Hoeflich has not used his column to criticize the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality regarding the medical records of Rader’s daughter.
Schenk's left flank
KMBZ’s morning news host, Ellen Schenk, on February 2 told listeners that a John S. and James L. Knight Foundation poll suggested that high school students “are more conservative today than you might think.” The poll found that only about half of the 100,000 students questioned believe that newspapers should be given free exercise of the press without government interference. Schenk then compared those who are not opposed to government interference to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican on the sitcom Family Ties.
I e-mailed Schenk and asked her if she really meant to equate government interference in the media with conservatism. "You might be taking me a little too seriously," she replied. " It was just an offhand comment that kids are more conservative today than you might think. That's it, nothing more. "
I guess she did mean it. I'll remember that the next time Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats push the Fairness Doctrine again. Bill Ruder, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce, declared the following in 1987: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
I e-mailed Schenk and asked her if she really meant to equate government interference in the media with conservatism. "You might be taking me a little too seriously," she replied. " It was just an offhand comment that kids are more conservative today than you might think. That's it, nothing more. "
I guess she did mean it. I'll remember that the next time Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats push the Fairness Doctrine again. Bill Ruder, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce, declared the following in 1987: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)