"Elephant Violating a Church" contemporary
figurative painting
Most Americans are aware that our
general population is the least-eductated of all the Westernized nations,
yet few have ever taken the time to reflect on how this situation may be
affecting their own political views.
In 2003, the American public was more
or less evenly divided on the invasion of Iraq: roughly half were against
the war, and roughly half were in favor of it.
If you limited the survey to only people who had ever read
a non-religious book on Middle Eastern history before September the 11th, the division
was completely one sided: over 90% opposed the war, at least as far as
I could tell from the months I spent asking people
questions.
Why are we in this situation?
Here
is something significant that I noticed. It can be
easily verified from newspaper and radio archives:
In the run-up to the invasion
of Iraq, the French press was filled with discussion on the issue,
with all sorts of detailed analysis based on their own experience with
domestic Islamic terrorism and their years of colonial administration of
Algeria and other Muslim countries. Believe it or
not, not everything they said was against the invasion or anti-American. They
had many excellent and well-thought-out recommendations, such
as how we needed to plan for the peace and ensure sufficient
troop stength to prevent the country from descending into chaos
and looting, which could cost a lot more than extra troops from the start by
keeping us there longer.
How did our news media report on this
very important and well-informed discussion in France? There was
little or no coverage. Instead they talked about "Freedom Fries" and
how the French were a joke, especially in wars, etc. They talked
about "shock and awe" and how we were going to "kick some butts in
Iraq." It sounded more like a pep rally before a football game than
news coverage of an impending war.
Most of the US news
media is of poor quality because it is aimed at an audience that isn't very
educated.
We also have one news channel in particular that
regularly misrepresents alternative points of view.
They usually find the most-extreme voices in the opposition and
pretend like these views are shared by anyone who questions the policies
of the Bush Whitehouse. If an expert or college professor is
invited on the channel, then he or she will usually be an
ultra-liberal with all sorts of crack-pot ideas. The guest will
usually not be any of the tens of thousands of people who could better
represent the opposition.
This news channel has the audacity to
claim that its content is balanced and free from spin, yet its
purpose is clear: anyone who disagrees with our current foreign
policy must be misrepresented and ridiculed. There must not be any
real discussion of issues.
To me, there is sigificant
evidence that at invasion of Iraq would not have been possible politically
without this particular news channel. To me, they are liable for every life and every dollar lost in Iraq.
return to top
|
