Dec 27, 2006 1
credibility and the cult-of-the-word
so today i was reading up on the recent passing of UN resolution 1737 imposing sanctions on iran for enriching uranium … something that totally perplexed me as iran is party to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty and according to the IAEA have not broken any rules with the research they are conducting.
but as far as the general public is concerned, this isn’t important.
according to mainstream media, we have the following re-definition:
uranium = nuclear weapons
enrichment = weaponization
and that’s it, that’s all that matters.
and that’s what i’m getting at with respect to “credibility” and “cult-of-the-word” as the title of this post, we seem to be living in a culture where PR governs the usage of words and phrases to the point that they lose all meaning (see WMDs/insurgency/terroristm/etc… re: iraq) or undergo a re-definition more suitable for public approval of reactionary measures … like an impending attack on iran.
take, for instance, this article i stumbled across from the telegraph. i’m not sure if this is an editorial or what, but the shoddiness with which it’s written barely qualifies it as a blog entry. although various things stood out as oddly out of place for a serious discussion of iran’s position on the weaponization of nuclear capabilities, i finally had enough and decided to research the validity of some claims after reading this 2nd to last paragraph:
Reports from Iran say that Massoud Osanlou, the leader of the bus drivers’ union, was arrested at his home by members of the Basij, the pro-regime militia, and had part of his tongue cut out as a warning to be quiet.
“reports from iran say”!!!!!!! are you kidding me? when did we start taking for granted that ambiguity in citing sources is suitable only for a high school book report by someone who didn’t actually read the book?
so … i decided to research the validity of this claim that the leader of the bus drivers’ union had his tongue snipped, and by research, i mean i used google:
- a check on news.google.com returned ZERO results.
- and a general google search returned a bunch of sites with very little credibility the majority of which contained a cut and pasted snippet from this the title of which alone is enough to make you realize how useless the above claim by the telegraph is.
newsflash: it’s KU klux klan, not kLu klux klan!!!
people, please please please, stop taking for granted that journalism isn’t absolute, that because things are written by people who are paid to write doesn’t automatically assure its factuality or credibility.
