MSM is the official PR team of politicians. The media is a hotbed of carefully manufactured rhetoric for the shiny, can-do-no-wrong Hill. Make no mistake, the linguistic formation of their content is organized and skewed toward co-opting the WH. In other words, media is the Goose to Obama’s Maverick.
Take for example ABC anchor Diane Sawyer’s opening salvo about the Syrian conflict during her World News broadcast on August 27:
“The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria. The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position. And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when. The goal, to stop a man using brutal chemical weapons 5,000 miles away.”
This opener is rife with careful tinkering of linguistics and symbols in order to square up MSM’s language with that of the Oval Office.
“The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria…”
Right off the bat, the metaphor suggests “we are running out of time and better act quickly, otherwise more blood will be on the hands of US for not acting.” This simply subsumes American as a wing of the UN. Since when do we have a moral responsibility to fulfill international efforts of relief?!
“… The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position.”
This further assumes military action is unequivocally immanent; the question now is, “just how much military action?” Again, such framing completely glosses the fact that BOTH the UN and British PM have voted down any military action, and that less than 1 out of every 10 Americans supports military action — but this context is cleverly omitted. Even though there’s zero domestic, international and coalition coordination, our military warships are in position?!
Furthermore, military action is immanent but we have yet to see any of the alleged “undeniable” evidence that Assad used chem agents on his people, according to a stern Secretary of State John Kerry. ABC decides to not frame this key element. War is staring us in the face and yet our media is not asking, demanding for evidence to warrant its very own logic for war??! This directly contradicts ABC’s very function as an outlet of media to report the facts and remain as objective as possible. Therefore, this suggests they are more or less in public relations for the Hill.
“…And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when.”
ABC has licked their finger and held it up to gauge the wind of the stale, neutral space found inside agitprop imaginarium of bloated elitists that wish to police the world with gaseous promises of peace.
There is no debate to be had here, Diane, because no facts have been brought to the table; only a pinky swearing Secretary of State.