Real State of the Union (The Independent)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by numediaman, Jan 20, 2004.

  1. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #1
    The Independent (a British newspaper) ran the following story this morning . . . here is the link for the full story . . . excerpt below

    link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=482947

    20 January 2004

    George W Bush and the real state of the Union

    Today the President gives his annual address. As the election battle begins, how does his first term add up?

    232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004

    501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far

    0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945

    0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed

    0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq

    100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003

    13: Number of meetings between Bush and Tony Blair since he became President

    10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest

    2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House

    9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year

    1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began

    16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war

    10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi cililians killed since the beginning of the conflict

    $100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003 . . .
     
  2. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #2
    Sounds like someone's a bit bitter...

    This is why I don't like to trust one-sided "pseudo-news" articles. They are rather biased and uninformative. It seems to be a form of hate speech that serves to attack one group, but do nothing for any other. It comes from the left, as well as the right (although I've seen a lot more from the left), and it just makes me wonder how people will take any news article for granted these days, without looking at the other side.

    Oh well... now, to read the liberal rag know as the Daily Toxin, uh, I mean, Texan...
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    it's called an opinion piece
     
  4. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    To be fair, they never identify it as such.

    What I don't like about these types of peices is that they lay out selective facts and basically say to the reader, "judge for yourselves." The problem with that is they are obviously biased in which facts they present. Any reader with half a brain can see that they are biased.

    Now I don't mind bias when the person is making complete arguments. Everybody is biased in one way or another and arguments generally reflect those biases. However, there is a big difference between judging someone's arguments and judging a list of information provided. An argument can often be judged solely on its content. I think many people will judge such a simplistic list on its bias rather than on the information it contains.

    By passing off such an obviously biased list of statistics as news, this paper loses credibility. Instead, they could have easily turned this into an editorial piece with cohesive arguments against a Bush re-election.

    However, to label this article as "hate speech" is ludicrous. Conservatives have latched on to this term and applied it to ANY political attack or criticism. What exactly is hate speech? Is it content which obviously discriminates? Is it content which attacks a policy? Is it content which attacks a politician?

    If I were to define hate speech it would be something like this: content which attacks an opponent without basis in policy or fact. Just because I don't like someone (or even hate someone) and I write about it doesn't mean that I am engaging in hate speech. If I have legitimate compaints with that persons behavior or policy, then it is fair to criticize that person, or even say that I personally don't like (hate) that person because of those actions and policies.

    This article is based in fact. It may be biased. It may be unfair. But it is obviously singling out Bush's policies and saying, "THIS is why I don't like Bush." This is not hate speech.

    Taft
     
  5. numediaman thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #5
    I picked up this piece off the Independent web site. It was not labeled "opinion" -- but the British papers handle these kinds of things very differently than US papers. Papers there don't pretend to be nonpartisan -- and the Independent clearly doesn't think much of Prez Bush.

    I think many Bush supporters have no real clue how angry Europeans are about his policies. Today's Chi Tribune has a story on the front page about the Bush administrations objections to the World Health Organizations (WHO) fight against obesity. The original story appeared on the BBC web site on the 15th: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3414741.stm

    Apparently, the Bush admin is mad because the WHO wants to warn people about excessive consumption of sugars and junk food. But then again, there is no obesity problem in the U.S.;)
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    I'm confused. How is quoting actual numbers biased?
     
  7. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #7
    *MY* state of the union addressed.

    The economy is in the toliet. THe only thing that has kept it from being flushed is high gasoline prices and high housing costs.

    Over 500 citizens of the United States have died in Iraq.

    The "President" is a liar. In all fairness, that would go for anyone who has ever been in the white house but this is the guy who was suppose to "restore integrity" to the white house.

    I still don't have health insurance.

    Or a permanent job.

    The bigots who run the country think that they can define marriage. And they might just get away with it for a few years.

    Civil rights are a thing of the past.

    We won't get into the state of the world...
     
  8. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    Sorry for the length of the article below, but I HATE the use of this term to describe political criticism. This article, by Brendan Nyhan over at Spinsanity deals with the topic better than I could.

     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    here's the NYT op/ed piece about the SOTU

    link

     
  10. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #10
    You might say the phrase "political hate speech" is a kind of political hate speech.

    Nice find Sayhey.
     
  11. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #11
    and why no word of the over-a-billion-a-day-in-new-debt fiscal policy?
     
  12. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #12
    I was watching "Meet the Press" this morning and apparently Bush's approval rating went down after his State of the Union Address. Which is very unusual.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    There is no fiscal policy, just look at the spending bill he just signed. does he even know what a veto is? Fact of the matter is he has a spending habit and we and our children will be paying for it.
     

Share This Page