Disclaimer: May contain aluminium.
This diary comes at a time when the mainstream media cannot be trusted, and one has to try and piece together the truth, deducing it from its very absence.
To this end I wish to put forward two recent "big stories" and offer my thoughts on critical analysis of these media reports.
The first one is this recent missile strike in northern Pakistan
This is a huge story, especially for everyday Pakistanis who realize suddenly that their government endorsed targeted missile strikes on civilian targets within Pakistan!
The MSM headlines went something like this:
Ayman al Zawahri Killed In Targeted Missile Strike
(which soon became)
Zawahri suspected to have been killed
(which then changed to)
Al Qaeda Suspects Killed In Raid (Zawahri a no-show)
(then)
DNA of Al Qaeda suspects to be tested for confirmation in targeted strike
Then as the story's popularity starts to wane the truth is slowly revealed; naturally, as truth abhors a vacuum.
There is no evidence of any Al Qaeda operatives, terrorists or anyone other than more than a dozen ordinary Pakistanis (women and children included) known to have been killed.
The focus of these reports was largely speculative and sensationalist - and everyone did it. It was fascinating and scary to watch it happen again. A necessary way of getting the truth from a story these days is to read the first stories VERY skeptically, and try to piece what is missing, using word games that hide the truth as clues (such as "could not be immediately confirmed" or "unconfirmed sources")
Here's a great (and randomly chosen) example from yesterday's CBC which originally held a headline with a Question mark!!?!!prominently in its Google News result.
The security officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media, named four al Qaeda figures thought to have been in the village at the time of the attack, saying that their bodies were believed to have been taken away by sympathizers.
Ok - critical thinking time:
'security officials' - sounds vague
'condition of anonymity' - unverifiable
'al Qaeda' - do I need to go there?
'thought to have' - who thought it? I thought I was a billionaire playboy rockstar once, but it turned out not to be true.
'in the villiage' - they were 'thought to have' been in the general vicinity, not necessarily the house that was hit.
'believed' - see my thought comment, I really believed I was a billionaire rockstar for a moment too.
'taken away' - i.e. no evidence available
How did the story even get this far? My opinion is that the answer must lie in the impetus to write the news. It's obvious that headlines such as:
US Missiles Kill Civilians in Pakistani Strike
would not be palatable with the american public, who's popular opinion is a necessary part of the equation to support the actions in afghanistan and iraq. Already Pakistani locals have rioted, been tear gassed, and cried out in anger, horror and disgust. They can't believe their own country (recently one of the US' advertised rogues) is complicit in such attacks, so closely aligned with the 'evil empire'.
My strategy for surviving in the propagandasphere is to accept proof positive only; believing facts that can survive critical analysis. I'm done with unconfirmed reports and unnamed official sources. I'm fed up with the manipulation, the lies, and the shameful disrespect of families, and free thinkers. I stopped hitting myself over the head Mr. Rove, ever since someone showed me how to teach a man to hit himself over the head. I'm building up my immunity and adapting, and so are millions of others - there are those still believing that Al Qaeda had something to do with Iraq before the recent invasion; they may never get it, but critical thinking is not dead. Daily Kos is a respite from the head bashing media, and so far one of the only places to go for critical analyis of the media. I am thankful for that, and it shows that no matter how badly the fix is in, we'll always be able to show that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4.
I mentioned two recent stories - the other is the recent Bin Laden tape, there are already several diaries discussing the timing of this release, and its content. To my critical mind it appeared to be a cleverly crafted mapping of US democratic party talking points under the banner of the Bin Laden mythos. What a great way to shoot down your opponents, by allying them with the enemy (again - it's getting rather old) Again, the news stories, critically read, show NO confirmation that this is Bin Laden. In fact the audio quality (cassette tapes) is always so poor, as to make the detection of an imposter impossible - even without the need an imposter, it's possible that Bin Laden never stopped being an asset of the US. I have no proof that there is a Bin Laden or independent organization called Al Qaeda that wants to kill me. Here are the only facts I can glean so far, and what my interpretation is:
An audiotape was released to the media - no video for a few years (since people started to critically analyze them at least, e.g. the 911 'confession tape' that many accuse of being a phoney)
The audio quality was poor - impossible to confirm or deny
The tape became the top story very fast - it was very important for us to see it prominently - thus pushing down the bad news for the repubs below this and other unconfirmed truthy stories. Abramoff, off the front page. Support for Bush' agenda back to No. 1.
The message in the tape parrots a lot of what we read on left wing blogs, of a more democratic rational approach in general - which is exactly what the republicans don't want. How better to ally the democrats message with the hated 'enemy' to discredit their message, and call into question their patriotism (again)
Just look at Scotty's response to the mention of a truce. I don't even know where to begin!
It's sickening, I've had enough, my fill even - but I've adapted and adjusted. So are all of you, from what I can read. While some of us are still tin foil hatters for not believing in the 911 bogeyman (I still haven't seen anyone convicted, any realistic evidence, tests of debris, debris?, confessions? anything? supporting the fact that men in caves committed such an atrocity) time is starting to vindicate our skepticism.