Read an interesting piece in the New York Times this morning about yet another congressional ballyhoo over media comments on the war. This time, it's politicians on the left attacking Rush Limbaugh for comments about soldiers. Last month, it was the right lashing out against moveon.org for the "General Betray Us" ad.
A thought-provoking line:
The back and forth on the Petraeus advertisement and, now, over Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, illustrates how both parties are turning miscues into fodder in the run up to the 2008 elections, particularly in the absence of serious legislative accomplishment when it comes to the war.
Does this kind of debate serve the electorate well? Should a free society attack commentators like Limbaugh when they're doing what they're paid to do, comment? Do we strip comments of their context when controversies like this catch fire? Do organizations like moveon.org add to debate or make it more shallow?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
War on Words
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do either Limbaugh or MoveOn's strategies affect the voting public themselves? Personally, I think both Limbaugh and MoveOn and the commentators ultimately promote a sort of political cynicism (as well as a cynicism towards the press) that isn't healthy for the voting public. It's tricky to make this into an ethics argument, however, especially since it often seems that the information people should be basing commentary on, such as legislative action, remains fairly stagnant (or at least hidden).
Although I would at first agree with frances, I have a whole lot of relatives who take Rush Limbaugh as a great source for information, and not as political cynicism. (I know...I know...)
If this type of thing is truly influencing voters, and it really does start to stick, "general betray us" is pretty catchy after all, I think it poses a huge ethics argument.
Post a Comment