When 'is' is not 'is' by Dan Alba
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Semantics is only trivial until language is contorted to mislead you into seeing evil as benevolence, slavery as freedom.
The New York Times recently admitted to appeasing the U.S. government by striking the word torture from its narratives. How shocking that they claimed to be right because the government said so, and that it is fine journalism just the same.
Well, you see something new every day.
Even when you saw it the day before.
In yesterday's write-up on how The AP reported the Michael Steele "gaffe," I focused on the omitted content (and context), but failed to point out the obvious because, well, it wasn't so obvious.
View the 0:21–0:27 portion of this video, then read the opening paragraph of the AP report:
Republican chairman Michael Steele drew criticism from within his own party Friday, including calls to resign, after saying the 9-year-old commitment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan was a mistaken "war of Obama's choosing."
See it? Michael Steele didn't say Afghanistan "was ..." He said Afghanistan "is ..." ("Was" as in: Afghanistan was Bush's war. "Is" as in: Afghanistan is Obama's war. See how that works?) Neither did he use the word mistaken.
So, the whole "Michael Steele's gaffe" narrative, on innumerable political Websites and in thousands of newspapers, is largely based on what amounts to a disingenuous scare quote.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Alba only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Alba is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"Is" vs "was"? Does it really make a difference? The two relevant facts to this article are that: (a) Obama did inherit the war from Bush, and (2) Obama is choosing to expand that war. Whether Steele said "is" or "was" hardly matters in regard to those facts. What's clear is that Steele's trying to remove the blame from Bush and dump it all on Obama, while his opponents within his own branch of the Republicrat Party (aka the Republican Party) are trying to blame him for his branch's troubles, and his opponents from the other branch of the Republicrat Party (aka the Democratic Party) are trying to blame him for undermining American unity and the Obama administration. What's also clear is that this is all politics-as-usual, and that all sides are playing the spin game, aka "the blame game".
Do the media play the blame game, where they report the shuffling off one side's guilt by blaming the other side, and where such activity is considered more important than examining the truth of the matter? Sure. They always have, and they likely always will, because their readers wrongly give the blame game so much credence. The people encourage and drive the media (and encourage the politicians) to keep playing the blame game endlessly, because they (like you) consider blaming the other guys more important than discussing sensible policy and the ramifications of foolish policy. The moment we focus on the blame game is the moment that we lose sight of the larger issue, which is whether we should stay in Afghanistan, and if we should stay, what we should do there.
The petty maneuverings of the two branches of the Republicrat Party hardly matter, but don't tell that to most people or to the major media. If they're Republican conservatives, then they shout that the Democratic liberals are to blame for everything. If they're Democratic liberals, then they scream that the Republican conservatives are to blame for everything. And if they're self-described "moderates", they quietly complain that the country is being taken over by extremists, aka people who think that the government's actions should be overtly challenged.
And as a result, nothing happens except finger pointing. Substance disappears from the debate.
So I don't really see the point in continuing to focus the public's attention on the blame game, in this case on what Steele said. All such focus really accomplishes is to fuel the blame game's fire while distracting us from the real issues.
I agree with both of you. Semantics are...bizzare..to say the least. Certainly they have no place in public discourse. In a court room???....maybe.
So is it Obama's war? He inherited it. SO WHAT??? He's the president. He could have done any number of things after election. But he chose not to.
Is he wrong? Time will tell. But I am tired of hearing "Oh...it's Bush's fault" crap out of these old left over left wing wierdos from the 60's. I think Steele tried to make that statement...even though it may not have come off that way. It is Obama's war. Let him do with it what he will. Steele just made that point.
"Is" vs "was"? Does it really make a difference? The two relevant facts to this article are that: (a) Obama did inherit the war from Bush, and (2) Obama is choosing to expand that war. Whether Steele said "is" or "was" hardly matters in regard to those facts.
It matters when the world's largest news agency lies from the get-go to falsely frame a pro-war, pro-policy narrative. Why allow The AP to get away with a false premise (i.e., that Steele said it has been Obama's war since 2001); it only makes it easy for The AP (and the superficial LIB/CON, REP/DEM non-debaters) to divert the discussion away from the most important thing Steele said in reference to the war itself.
What's clear is that Steele's trying to remove the blame from Bush and dump it all on Obama, while his opponents within his own branch of the Republicrat Party (aka the Republican Party) are trying to blame him for his branch's troubles, and his opponents from the other branch of the Republicrat Party (aka the Democratic Party) are trying to blame him for undermining American unity and the Obama administration. What's also clear is that this is all politics-as-usual, and that all sides are playing the spin game, aka "the blame game".
Right. Which is exactly why I leave that sort of thing to the "experts" over at Kos and New Republic and the like. My focus is on the dishonest state-worshiping news media, and how they deceive readers in a pro-war pro-policy way.
Do the media play the blame game, where they report the shuffling off one side's guilt by blaming the other side, and where such activity is considered more important than examining the truth of the matter? Sure. They always have, and they likely always will, because their readers wrongly give the blame game so much credence. The people encourage and drive the media (and encourage the politicians) to keep playing the blame game endlessly, because they (like you) consider blaming the other guys more important than discussing sensible policy and the ramifications of foolish policy. The moment we focus on the blame game is the moment that we lose sight of the larger issue, which is whether we should stay in Afghanistan, and if we should stay, what we should do there.
Have you even read my last two articles? This one is basically an over-glorified update on the previous one where I focus on how the media are prolonging and virtually peddling these evil POLICIES, acting as state-controlled news, yada yada...
The AP is guilty of misrepresenting the facts in favor of empire. I blame The AP for that. Always have. That's as far as I've taken any "blame game." Where you get the REP/DEM, LIB/CON stuff from MY writing is beyond me because, like I said, I leave that stuff to others (like, say, The AP).
Thanks for the comment, Brucus. Yeah, Steele's "gaffe" seems to be politically motivated, and not based on some sudden change of heart. I.e., he is not about to go anti-neocon on us any time soon. Sure, why not let Obama run his own ship into the ground; but it is vital for the public to know why that ship is sinking. My position here is that politicians already get away with lying to foster support their policies of pillaging; the news media then do the politicians a huge favor by using the wrong (pro-policy) language, omitting the most vital factual context, failing to challenge obvious informational fraud unless it casts the status quo in a flattering light, and so on. The marauders and racketeers get away with it, thanks in no small part to their trusty parrots in the state-connected news media.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: July 14, 2010 07:54:13 AM
The best Propaganda is made up of subtle debatable nuances being employed to blur the truth. This "was" and "is" debate is exactly the desired effect. These propagandists blurred the meaning of Steels statement to deflect responsibility from the existing command structure.
We now have the fact that Micheal Steele made a statement,presto chango, now we get to debate his meaning. What was his meaning and what is his intent. "Was" and "is" is a big deal.
