TV network news biased
Why do we continue to validate television network news when it has failed to deliver unvarnished reporting? We wouldn't knowingly eat tainted meat, yet we've swallowed tainted analyses.
According to a recent New York Times report, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the major networks aired more than 70 independent analysts, military officers whose views were scripted by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Some of them even worked as lobbyists or were seeking Pentagon defense contracts.
In the laughable Clinton/Obama debate, ABC's Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Obama if he thought his former pastor loved America. No commentator has asked Sen. McCain if his backer, Pastor John Hagee (on record as believing Katrina was God-sent to destroy New Orleans sinners), if he loves America. To date, McCain has failed to reject Hagee's endorsement.
The evening news is powerful. Many of us accepted its commentators' assertions that Iraq was rife with Weapons of Mass Destruction. We tacitly OK'd the war, displayed flags on our cars, lawns and buildings and were pumped with patriotic fervor.
Will we continue to give credence to everything the networks feed us, or are we ready to do our own research? The latter, I hope.
Mary Eliowitz
Maple City
Bully or criminal?
In a recent edition of the Record-Eagle I read that a 17-year-old suspended student was arrested for assault and battery for shoving an assistant principal of Traverse City Central High School.
I agree with the arrest. However, I also know that if a student had been shoved, it would have been written off as rite-of-passage bullying. Student-on-student physical attacks happen frequently without arrests taking place.
Therefore, we must assume that the safety of adult school administrators is thought of as a much more urgent matter than the safety of students (who are generally more physically and emotionally vulnerable).
At what exact age does a physical attack turn from mere bullying to assault and battery?
Brad Aspey
Interlochen