The News Today
Today I listened to a fair amount of Fox News while at work, due to them having a much more flexible net newscast than CNN or any other news programs I’m aware of. Here’s my take on just a bit of todays news.
Most of the articles they had on about Democrats were about Obama. Looking back, this seems to be a bit of a trend. Perhaps someone in a position to dictate stories wants Obama to get more publicity. In any case, this seems to be a bias in a news system that claims to be “Fair and Balanced.”
Honestly, so much strong political opinion, without opposition, is injected into so many of their individual news programs, that I can’t see how they can make their claim. Any time I accidentally run across an article from “Kelly’s court” I groan, and try to switch out before she gives her “final thought” at the end of the program. Her format is one most often used by those on the program that at least pretend to be impartial or balanced. They invite 2 guests on with opposing view points, and then have an “impartial” interviewer interview the two in order to paint a “balanced” picture of the issue. However, from opening to her closing “Final thoughts” Kelly is obviously on one side or another, and asks incredibly leading questions.
Others make no claims that they, themselves are impartial, such as Bill O’Rielly who provides incredibly opinionated commentary sections. He flat out says he has an opinion, goes after the left, and says his section is commentary. However he nearly always introduces the station as a whole as being fair and balanced.
Then there is the interview format where you bring on one guest, and have a strongly conservative, and a strongly liberal news caster take turns asking him questions. Maybe they figure that if they can’t get balance with a single news caster and two opposing guests, they should try reversing the formula. At least then they don’t really pretend that their news casters are, themselves “fair and balanced.”
Also, while I am definitely more in line with the Libertarians and the Republicans than the Democrats on most issues, I find myself solidly on the same side as the Democrats on yet another issue.
The Patriot Act is up for renewal this session. This bill is not needed, and includes violations of our civil liberties. In addition, Bush has ignored requirements and limitations that FISA and the Patriot Act have granted the intelligence community, saying that he is not limited by the congress when it comes to wiretaps, and that he can authorize them whenever he feels it is necessary.
Rather than just letting the Patriot Act lapse (a perfectly valid choice in my opinion), the Democrats are working to make some changes to FISA it’s self. The NSA is pushing for the ability to tap any communication between two foreign citizens in two foreign locations without a warrant of any kind. In exchange, the Democrats want to re-institute measures where monitoring a call originating in another country, but with a destination in the United States would require the NSA to gain court approval, something which is already specifically afforded by our constitution.
Now, the intelligence community calls this a huge burden, a measure that was never imposed before. I have news for you, and them. That’s how it was before FISA was passed, and it was illegal to do wiretapping of any kind without getting a warrant first.
The intelligence community says it’s impossible to tell who a foreign suspect will call before they make said call. FISA already allows for expedited, and even retroactive warrants under circumstances where they could reasonably show that they had reason to suspect the US citizen that was going to be called, and that they had reason to suspect the US citizen of being a terrorist before hand. Forcing the intelligence agents to get these retroactive warrants for the call after they occurred would in no way endanger intelligence operations, but rather would provide some meager protection of our civil liberties.
In fact, even if the Democrats want to require the NSA to get approval before they can listen in on calls into the US from a foreign suspect in general, and then get retroactive warrants for any calls with a destination on US soil, I would be in favor of that as well. It would require the intelligence community to show that they have reasonable suspicion that the person they are monitoring is indeed a terrorist before they could boot strap to monitor calls inside the US.
If they go this rout, I would suggest they require retroactive warrants for any call that involves a US citizen even if that citizen is abroad, but not require warrants for calls that involve foreign nationals on US soil, such as calls to any illegal entrants.
Finally, something that just struck me as broken about a commentary panel. While they actually got into a serious discussion of an issue, which I view as one of the rare shining moments for political commentators, more often called “talking heads,” the fellow running the panel shut it down, having this to say. “How did we get into a serious discussion of an issue? We are trying to do a horse race. We’re done.” In my opinion, if you’re providing commentary on a serious issue, and you’re providing opposing view points, you should get into a serious discussion, rather than the sensationalized yelling matches or quick one-liners that our “news” service has degraded into. If you think that serious discussion doesn’t belong in a commentary panel, then in my opinion, you don’t belong on the news.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
More and more I go to blogs to get my news, blogs, and internet news sites. Though, if FOX isn’t giving HIllary much coverage, please excuse my dancing with glee…the bitch really does need to be ignored, shunted off into some distant corner, labeled “Unfit!” to be our president. But that’s my opinion. Problem is, in our society, heated debate on politics and issues are, dare I say it, “taboo”? yeah, think that’s the right word for it. People shy away from debate, arguments on viewpoints where concepts are challenged and ideas are introduced. Something about that just turns them folks from the 40’s through late 70’s birthyears…just turns ‘em right off. They don’t want to think while they’re ingesting information, is what it boils down to, and much as us younger folks (at heart, in mind, spirit, body, what have you) give a statement such as that a look like “o.O” it really is true.
News is an industry of profit, and right now, profit is in not challenging people’s beliefs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Well, I’m happy to become one of your news sources.
And some of the older folks I know, such as my parents, are really rather overworked, and use watching the news as part of a daily process to relax. Relaxing and pondering hard things aren’t usually the same for them.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I would like to challenge some of your assertions on wiretapping and intelligence gathering, but I lack the depth of research at the present time. From my own readings and study of the Patriot Act, it is not the dreaded erosion of our civil liberties that many people have painted it as - often hysterically. Still, I’ll have to look into it. The primary goal of the Patriot Act is and was to remove the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence, the major factor keeping the dots from being connected prior to 9/11. Further, it’s my understanding that the Patriot Act makes explicitly legal to federal authorities tactics and techniques which have been used and upheld by local law enforcement in cities across the country. The heaviest breathing has been over the library records checking. This makes no sense. How is the government having access to public information more of a violation of our civil liberties than Google, InfoUSA, or any of the dozens of aggregation corporations building complete profiles of everything we do on a daily basis?
August 4th, 2007 at 2:48 am
I somehow doubt that Google has my library reading record.
As for the police being able to use those tactics for domestic crimes due to the FISA courts, I’m against that too. I don’t know about you, but I value my rights, and I am firmly against letting the government chip away any further at them than they already have.