Posted by
Randal Lee Manning Jr. on Sunday, December 03, 2006 3:36:30 AM
I am finally able to continue my blog. My absence was due to my professors who think it is necessary to give me a continuous flow of mindless busy work, but now that it is out of the way I can finally focus on what is important. Finally there at least some grumblings over the Muslim who got elected to the house because he wants to be sworn in on the Qu'ran instead of the Bible. That should be no problem for the tolerant state of Minnesota, I heard they let Jesse Ventura put his hand on a Playboy when he was sworn in. But that aside this week I feel a need to address some of the mainstream medias presuppositions and their effect on the news that the general public gets.
On Saturday night I logged onto the internet to check my email. I have an email address on yahoo and I have to go to the search engines home page to access the internet. On the front page of Yahoo's news section I noticed that the number one story was a classified memo written by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld that was going to be published by the New York Times, in which the recently resigned Secretary of Defense stated that a new direction in Iraq was needed. As I clicked on the link and waited for the page to load I thought to myself, "could Rumsfeld be the first prominent member of the Bush administration to advocate a withdrawal?" I quickly scanned the article and as with most stories on Yahoo the article gave me almost no information. So as any good Conservative would do I went to check the Drudge Report. Drudge faithfully provided me with a link to the story published by the New York Times with a copy of the memo attached.
At the outset I must state one thing that might get lost in the debate over this controversy. The New York Times once again decided to publish a classified government document. If a news media outlet publishes a classified document it should be very careful that they are publishing it because the document is necessary for the public to know what the government has deemed classified. As I will argue this memo does not meet the above criteria nor does it meet the criteria for being newsworthy.
Now in this whole controversy there is a need to define terminology. When the mainstream media says a "new direction in Iraq is needed" they are referring to a timed pull out of coalition forces. This has been subtly defined by the news media over the past years. Then for the mainstream media to assert that Rumsfeld wrote a memo advocating a "new direction in Iraq" they mean to imply that Donald Rumsfeld advocated a pull out of coalition forces. After reading his memo Rumsfeld is clearly referring to strategy in midst of the war. Rumsfeld is writing that in light of changing environment and events that are currently taking place in Iraq we need to tweak some of the coalitions strategies to account for the changing conditions. Not once does Rumsfeld advocate for a pull out of any sort and he actually warns against a timetable. So why is the mainstream media making such a big deal out of this story?
The reason this is such a big story is because the mainstream media has done it's best to instill presuppositions that it holds, into the general public. Therefore what is a rather mundane and normal memo is turned into an easily spun story for the New York Times. In order to drive home their point the New York Times plays on two main presuppositions. The first one that they wish to prey upon is found in the opening paragraph of the article that states that Donald Rumsfeld has been "a symbol of a dogged stay the course policy." The argument they wish to imply to the reader is that nobody has been a bigger advocate of the Iraq War than Donald Rumsfeld and he is now advocating "a new direction in Iraq." Therefore if the most staunch supporter of the Iraq War is now pulling back and advocating "a new direction" than Iraq must really be going badly. The second is more subtle. They have also tried to instill the belief that the Bush administration just gets rid of any dissenters within their ranks. That is why they make sure to mention in the story that Rumsfeld issued the memo one day before he stepped down.
There are a multitude of problems with this. First of all the idea that Donald Rumsfeld just wants to stick to the same plan and never deviate from it is just silly. The Iraq plan is constantly facing new problems and difficulties and therefore it is in constant metamorphosis. For example the Pentagon changed strategies drastically from the first invasion to trying to secure the nation. Secondly, it is then not surprising that Rumsfeld the man who is responsible for adapting the military strategy to the current climate and needs in Iraq issued a memo on how he thought they could change strategy in order to best meet the needs of Iraq and our military. The second presupposition I mentioned is probably not the case and even if it is for this conversation it is irrelevant because Rumsfeld's memo was not attacking foreign policy and not calling for a drastic change in foreign policy. He was suggesting strategy and offering a brainstorm of strategies that could lead to progress in Iraq.
So then what conclusion do we come to? Well the New York Times published a memo that is status quo and part of the job description of our Secretary of Defense. It is not ground breaking and it will not lead to any major shift in foreign policy. Rumsfeld was not deviating from current U.S policy but was offering suggestions for strategy in Iraq. So then if you shed the presuppositions of the mainstream media we have a story that was hardly worth publishing. The New York Times published this story because it was spinnable which is abhorrent enough but the fact that they sought a leaker and published a classified document that is intended to undermine the Iraq War is shameful.