Journal: 1-4

Politics and Good Judgement

    From my research of last week's question, I was able to come up with a list of even more tactics the media uses in order to make it seem like they are telling the whole truth but they are really deceving. These tactics include:

-Pre-interviewing to make sure you only get people who believe what you are trying to convey.
-Applying peer pressure on a person while interviewing.
-Only telling the half-truth of the subject, lying by elimination of want you don't want to include in your story.
-Only publishing facts they believe should be right instead of facts that go against their point but have sufficient evidence.

     I believe that the media uses these tactics to make the news more exciting because although there are many fallacies in the news today, the media is almost never held accountable for what they do.

     This past week we finished the documentary Michael Moore Hates America but started a new documentary titled: The Perfect Candidate. This is a movie documenting a race for congress in Virginia with emphasis on Oliver North and Chuck Robb. Both of these candidates have their own problems in their past that have left a long lasting mark on their poltical future that no one will forget. Oliver North helped President Reagan trade hostages in Lebanon in exchange for U.S. weapeons and Chuck Robb was accused of having an affair with a playboy model and going to parties with cocaine being used.

     Although some people believe that political condidates should only be accountable for what they're doing now and their political actions, I believe that politicians should be held accountable for what they have done in their past. No matter how great a political leader may be, you can always tell their true character by what they have done in their past regardless of whether they have changed their ways or not. I believe it's always ethical to judge people on what they have done in their past just as much as what they do in the present.

     Something this issue prompeted me to think about was how tolerate American people can sometimes be. For example, when President Obama was asked the question of whether he had smoked marijuana before he said that he had when he was younger but that he was a confused teenage boy at the time. It makes me wonder that if American's 100% cared about the President's past as much as they cared about what he was doing now, if he might not have gotten elected becase of something he had done in his past that he was ashamed about.

     This can apply to many politicians in today's society such as John Edwards having a baby with another woman other than his wife who is dying of cancer. Although this is still really shocking to the American people, he might still have a career in the future after all the hysteria and hype about this scadal has settled.

     Some may say that that is a great thing about our country; that we can do something in our past and not stand judgement for it in the future after we've changed. However I overall disagree. Being too forgiving cause us to overlook major chracter flaws in our political candidiates. It is their character that plays a big part in how they can be trusted to be responsible and reliable to the American people without becoming an embarassment. I've noticed in life that if a politician is held accountable for their actions in their past, the right choice will almost always be made by the American people.

     I leave today with a question: SHould politicians be accounted for what they have done in their past 100%?

"Primer on Media Tactics to Deceive." JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. http://www.junkscience.com/news3/singer55.html.

 

"State Department Backs Muslim Cartoon Protests." Sweetness & Light. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/state-department-backs-moslems-on-cartoons.