Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Newsday, hire an editor

In the most recent issue of Newsday, they're not even trying hard. They've got an article on the Supreme Court's decision to bar legalizing medicinial marijuana (or something like that- I really don't care about the issue), but the article in Newsday HAD to have a picture of a lady, sitting next to some plants of hash, crying. Now, was that necessary? Or was it a cheap assed stunt to try to get people to take sides in the arguement? I can care less about the issue itself- but Newsday's tactics are petty, and not worthy of a newspaper of record. Any editor worth their salt would have seen that for the advocacy slant it is.

Then Newsday trys to shift the whole Amnesty International mess onto the Bush administration by basically admitting that they don't need information about Guantanamo Bay- that they intrinsically know that crap happens down there. Yawn. Actually, I'd be more realistic, and take a quick look at the recent polls that have come out saying that about 75% of the nation trust the military, while only about 25% of the nation trusts the media. Newsday convieniently overlooks the media's "GOTCHA!" rantings about Gitmo in their mad rush to try to find something, anything, even the littlest detail, to hang on the military about Gitmo.

And Amnesty International's admitted it was all essentially a publicity stunt. Word to the wise, Newsweek found out what happens when you bullshit around with the greater middle east. I'm waiting for the media to find out what is really TOO far for the American public to take- and what it will cost them. And I say this because Newsday's editorial about Gitmo and Amnesty International is part and parcel of the problem- bitch about the military, it gets printed, irregardless of it's irresponsible nature, and the material harm that it can cause the United States.

When the Media finally does go too far, it will cost us all, both in terms of a media that's no longer able to function as a part of the first amendment, and the degraded American view that the media's given us overseas. When the US really does do wrong- they should be there to tell about it. But the problem is, is that they've been crying wolf for far too long now, and can't act in that fashion. Newsday and their ilk just don't want to admit that their stories don't have any evidence, rely on hyperbole, and cheap tactics to get people to agree with them, even in the basic newsprint. I see the end of where they're going with this, and it isn't pretty. I just don't want to see how many American lives it will cost us.

UPDATE: while doing some extra thinking about it, Amnesty International, Newsday, and their ilk could have done a better job of talking about real trouble spots in the world- like Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Darfur. Instead, they're playing cheap "we hate the Bush Administration game" and really don't care for the real suffering in the world. I would much rather see action against the muderers and rapists in Darfur and Zimbabwe, than whining about weather or not someone actually peed on a Koran. As a matter of fact, I'd very much like the conversation to change to Darfur and Zimbabwe. If the United States is going to get positive about Africa, those are the areas that they easily could do it within. And it would do well to stem the tide of Islamicism from Africa, while promoting American goodwill- kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.


Blogger RaulGoldfarb said...

I agree. I do wish that there was another publication for Long Island and End Newsday's monopoly on local information.

2:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home