The situation with the civil war in Syria is a mess. That is stating the obvious however, as any casual observer could see that. What is equally a mess is the reporting of certain media outlets on these events, namely, Fox News. I, however, cannot say that I am really all that surprised to find this little gem nestled in the sea of irrational, pharisaical, religiously biased reporting, subverted and twisted language, and of course, the ever-present fervent hatred of Barrack Obama. The article is titled "GOP Leaders should let Allah Syria's Islamic civil war". Let us notice a few things here. Firstly, even with the absence of inflection that comes with the spoken word, one can see the mocking tone that "Allah" is said with, the writer scoffing at the idea of a god different than his. Secondly, the writer very specifically that it is an Islamic civil war, exemplifying the classic American bias against anything middle-eastern. Moving into the article, the writer cannot help but once again point out just how much of a demon Obama is. "While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime..." (Horowitz). The author has chosen to use the word "regime" instead of administration or presidency to obviate once again his hatred of Obama. The article goes on to provide various fallacious and biased reasons why intervening in Syria would spell doom for the United States, this idea personified in the statement "Our only interest in Syria is ensuring that as many Islamists on both sides are killed and keep each other busy so they can't affect our national interests or threaten Israel .". Indeed, the writer suggests that simply letting the "Islamists" kill each other is a very good option. It simply does not matter to him if thousands of civilians are caught in the crossfire. Not only is this statement morally rotten, but the writers, puffed up, pompous, ignorant blindly chauvinistic figuratively turns his nose up at the idea of lesser beings getting in the way of his grand plans, in this case, the repeal of the so-called "Obamacare". "Republicans should vote with a unified voice against this ridiculous escapade, and summarily reconvene the fight against Obamacare.". It's truly sobering to see that in the authors mind, the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children are nothing in the face of his dislike of a healthcare bill. This kind of deceitful, biased reporting proves that one must be truly careful when choosing what to believe.
Link to article - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/gop-leaders-should-let-allah-sort-out-syria-islamic-civil-war/
I think you bring up an excellent point, not about the war but the ridiculous injustices done by commonly accepted and praised media outlets. Although I have established for myself that no one media outlet tells the truth or is unbiased, but it seems today that all media is gravitating to a side. It is very difficult to find unbiased news sources nowadays, but it seems impossible to be unbiased yet still retain the amount of viewers to keep the company afloat. Maybe the biased news sources are necessary, maybe they can be used by both sides of an argument to see the extremes of their own, and others, political ideals.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in a mainly Christian family has taught me many a thing about respect, and I have to say that I have no respect for Fox news at all. They make Christianity look like some kind of stereotypical rednecking conservative cult that feeds on the hatred of Obama and the middle east. Basically, Fox news gives us a bad name, because, as you can tell, my family is far from that point of view (except maybe my distant family from Arkansas, but that's besides the point) nor will we ever be such a stereotype. In fact, it is kind of sad the way Fox news opinionates their entire outlook of the world. I like Andrew's post though; at least it is fair and looks at both sides of the argument. Although it is hard to imagine that this kind of inflexible behavior is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree that much of the language in this article is gratuitous at best and it destroys any sort of validity he may have in arguing on this topic. I would be interested in what you thought of the argument if the biased tone and ignorant views of Islamic religion was removed. He references a common perspective: America doesn't have the resources to invest in the conflict (see economy) and that any action is based more in an interest in the Russia-Iran Alliance, without regard for the influence of Al-Queda. Unfortunately, the excessively unnecessary language hides any sort of valid argument.
ReplyDelete