Monday, July 18, 2005
Cheney vs Edwards Ad article misses the point
I think that the Fact Check article on Cheney vs. Edwards ad misses the point. This is not journalism here, but political messaging. The details that were "left out," I would argue are not even details that Edwards should be obliged to include, even ethically. The message rings true because there are so many instances for proof, and as long as the message rings true, and there isn't a gross twisting of words - the ad even indicated that Cheney quoted al Qaeda - then I think it's fine.
The fact is that we all view the world selectively, through our own individual lenses. Political communication pieces only reflect this reality. Democrats and many Americans hear fear in the messages of Cheney and Bush - even when they are quoted directly from their speeches, and they honestly see hope in Edwards. Perhaps the news has a responsibility to help us see through other lenses, but political communication is a form of free, creative speech and self expression. As such, just like short stories or opinion pieces, it pays attention to the details that matter to the creator, and excludes details that are not of interest. Only if it is grossly misleading or out of context is it wrong.
The nuances of message are subjective. There are so many words, each carrying its own bit of message, that you could argue forever about the overall message, theme, and subtext of a speech. Edwards has no responsibility to view Cheney's message the way Cheney views his own message. He has a responsibility instead to present Cheney's message as he views it, through his own lens.
The fact is that we all view the world selectively, through our own individual lenses. Political communication pieces only reflect this reality. Democrats and many Americans hear fear in the messages of Cheney and Bush - even when they are quoted directly from their speeches, and they honestly see hope in Edwards. Perhaps the news has a responsibility to help us see through other lenses, but political communication is a form of free, creative speech and self expression. As such, just like short stories or opinion pieces, it pays attention to the details that matter to the creator, and excludes details that are not of interest. Only if it is grossly misleading or out of context is it wrong.
The nuances of message are subjective. There are so many words, each carrying its own bit of message, that you could argue forever about the overall message, theme, and subtext of a speech. Edwards has no responsibility to view Cheney's message the way Cheney views his own message. He has a responsibility instead to present Cheney's message as he views it, through his own lens.
Comments:
<< Home
I totally agree, and think that much of FactCheck's work is increbily nit-picky. What blew me away in that article was the claim that MoveOn was misrepresenting Cheney's words since he was quoting an al Qaeda member, even though the ad said "Quoting al Qaeda" on the screen, because someone might miss it. That is a totally rediculous standard, and suggests that they are more interested in showing off their ability to find something wrong than actually improve the nature of the political discourse.
I'm jumping on the bandwagon. Political ads are inherently unfair in order to be persuasive. MoveOn did not lie, it just edited in a way to most benefit its candidate of choice. There are not many people left in America who don't realize what political ads are. However, for those people who truly want the full story and want all the facts in order to make a decision, I suppose FactCheck performs a helpful service.
Post a Comment
<< Home
