Introduction


            Media news is an important part of every citizen.  May it be of political, economic, technological, global and cultural issue, people rely on them to obtain sound and appropriate decision-making in their personal and professional lives.  In this respect, this paper is presented to analyze specific news from The New York Time (online) in order to derive conclusions about its objectivity or biasness and their implications to the reader including factors that can enhance/ dilute its objectivity.  Since news are distinguished from opinionated columns, from the objective of writers/ publishers of gathering data, evaluating its sufficiency and structuring its published presentation are crucial stages for the reader to have access to many relevant information as possible in order for the society to benefit from a responsive, if not pro-active, citizenry.                            


 


News Analysis


In the political news entitled “Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld”, the title failed to reflect the diverse opinions of the sample and its connection not exclusively to Rumsfeld or the pressures for his resignation but rather to military and political status of the country (see paragraph ).  This is aggravated by the title’s myopia in reflecting opinions towards other specific (see paragraph ) and ambiguous (paragraph see ) officials who are also in the hot seat.  Thus, there is bias with the writer’s too much emphasis on opinions relating to Rumsfeld even though the concern of the sample and the news itself has a more general and nationally-bounded information.  Since the title is the most used reference for the reader to decipher the content of the news, the reader will have to read the eighth paragraph to satisfy the curiosity stimulated in the title only finding that Rumsfeld paragraphs were scattered (see paragraph  & ).      


 


            The writer’s bias of selecting an appropriate title could dissatisfy the interest of the reader particularly those who are directly affected/ concerned in the issue.  Objective news should utilize also an objective title.  It is the assumption for the journalists to follow diligently the guide provided by the title.  Otherwise, the purpose would shift for advertising purposes instead of being the most convenient reference summarizing the whole news.  With the former eclipsing the latter, bias will ensue because the selection of the title was seemingly designed to highlight the persons or events that are very popular for a specific period.  In effect, this could lead the reader to different issues away from his expectation of the title.  In the positive side, an eye catcher title could invoke readers to read the whole news and be aware of Rumsfeld actions and its implications not to specific persons or groups but on national and international concerns.  Nevertheless, whatever its indirect goals would be which is commonly for the good of the public, the content should be consistent with the title to maintain its objectivity since it is hard, if not detrimental for the saying “time is gold”, to assume that every reader is interested to national facts.


 


            As the title had been myopic in reflecting indirect issues related to Rumsfeld, readers would tend to attribute the discrete opinions to him (see paragraph ).  These open-ended statements, although silent to refer for specific persons, will course its way towards the person being highlighted.  The writer can be accused to lead the readers viewing the statements as to refer to Rumsfeld.  In addition, this assessment of the writer’s implied bias as to highlight the resignation issue against Rumsfeld is supported by emphasizing the fact that he committed and should acknowledge mistakes (see paragraph ), many hated and want to see him go (see paragraph ), personal motives in selecting subordinates (see paragraph ) and elimination of anti-Rumsfeld officers (see paragraph ).  These statements aggressively showed the negative side of the debate against Rumsfeld while the positive feedback was located at the last portion of the news (see paragraph ).


 


            The restriction applied against the pro-Rumsfeld side does not constitute a debate itself (another criticism of the title) and delimit the focus of the reader to anti-Rumsfeld issues and opinions.  Lack of transparency is an obvious reason to say the news is bias.  One of the historic purposes of the news is to provide the reader with a broad view for a specific issue of great importance.  The American experience in 9/11 bombing has an apparent say to evidence the critical roles and decisions of the military in the lives of the US citizenry.  Some of them even donate just to support the troops in its overseas campaign against terrorism.  Basing on how the title was selected and presentation of the news and its progress, it seemingly has a hidden agenda to highlight the blame in the shoulders of Rumsfeld for the turmoil happening in the defense department.


 


            In this forgoing, the writer is suspected to place his personal views or the view of the newspaper to shake the belief of the public.  The lost objectivity, however, is replaced by the ability of this particular news to open the minds of the public regarding the issue at hand specifically the decision-making of Rumsfeld.  It provided the platform to question the credibility and intentions of the premier officials installed in the government.  Also, it made the public to rethink their view of overseas campaign of the US military especially its Iraq-led war/ restoration.  If the presentation is formally split to good and bad side, on the other hand, these rethinking concerns of the newspaper members would freeze.  The public would continue its mediocre view of the continuously developing situation which is unlikely to be beneficial for wise and guided decision-making.  With this, the bias has its positive reasons why it disconnected itself from transparency and objectivity.  Although it did not satisfy the presentation objectivity of the news, it has a good job to comply with its realization goals and the provision of a new framework for the public to analyze the present situation.


 


            In contrast, the assumption that people has principles and would stand to protect its likelihood is undermined.  If it happens that a particular reader is pro-stability or pro-administration, the news can be irritating and dissatisfying.  For an indifferent reader, the news can of minimal function while the possibility to be drifted to the other side of being anti-Rumsfeld is a probable ending which is relatively much for those who are unaware/ uninterested in the issue.  The purely anti-Rumsfeld would also find the news under the diminishing marginal utility of economics that will decrease its value.  These assumptions, as it cannot pulse the reality, only suggest that the newspaper should assume that people have sub-optimal knowledge of the issue but are willing and able to derive conclusions whenever their limited knowledge are stimulated by recurring information.  They are not ignorant, fool and uninterested for a particular issue especially when the news can adhere to objectivity of balance, consistent and factual stories.  Information is their emphasis not opinion or suggestion on how to arrive to one.  The latter is reserved for the specific use of the reader and should be respected.


 


Conclusion: Can news be objective or it is bound to be bias?


            For me, objective news is one that has a summary title, a sufficient data and a balanced structure on both sides of the issue.  By analyzing the above news, it is found that it can have an objective title if it can summarize and be consistent to the content of the story.  A crucial move to do this is by a twofold: either use the title as a guide or use it to summarize the researched issue.  The first can be of more use if the information can be accessed easily.  Otherwise, the writer can simply come up with a theme where he can conduct particular research and the title can be derived from the finished document.  However, the title in the example is in default of using the words “debate” and “Rumsfeld” which is arguably failed to summarize and stick with the data being presented.  If objectivity will be in the fore, a more appropriate title would be “Government Officials’ Wake-up Call from Junior Soldiers”.


 


            Sufficiency of data is one of the prerequisite of having transparent news.  It is understandable that the timeliness is important for the report to maintain its sizzling feature and relevance to reader.  This is the major hindrance to accumulate optimal amount of information including the financial aspect.  Since the sample newspaper is a privately-owned firm, profit-orientation can undermine the financial support for thorough investigation that could include additional manpower, electronic devices and representation expenses during restaurant interviews.  So, even if there is an available time for the preparation of wide-array of data, instances of leveraging on cash flow would not permit additional effort and resources to back up the engagement.  As what happened in the example, the content was tossed to other general facts with indirect relation to the title.  It could be an indication that opinions about Rumsfeld are insufficient and so it was practical to insert secondary issues that revolves around the subject. 


 


            Lastly, a constructive emphasis on one side while defeating the key issue of the other can itself obtain a bias position.  Since readers do not have all the time in the world to read a specific article, merely manipulating the structure of the news can loose its objectivity.  For it to remain unbiased, at least to our example, the writer should have a sufficient information (which he failed to do so) to be able to combine in a single paragraph the two side of the story, referred as “debate” in the title.  This is to criticize the mentioning of the other side at the down most part of the news which imply, if not command, the reader to read the whole article (but they are time-bounded) and simply posed negative attributes to Rumsfeld, the military and the government.  In this view, objectivity in the title and sufficiency in data can be melted by the act of structure manipulation.


 


Bibliography                                 


Electronic Sources


Attachment (The News being Analyzed)


Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld


By  and


Published: April 23, 2006


1. WASHINGTON, April 22 — The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services’ staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.


2. Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign.


3. In recent weeks, military correspondents of The Times discussed those issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls.


4. To protect their careers, the officers were granted anonymity so they could speak frankly about the debates they have had and have heard. The stances that emerged are anything but uniform, although all seem colored by deep concern over the quality of civil-military relations, and the way ahead in Iraq.


5. The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.


6. “This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly,” said one Army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. “I can only hope that my generation does better someday.”


7. An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: “The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, ‘We cannot do this mission.’ They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers” who might otherwise have stayed in uniform.


8. One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and “show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be,” the colonel said.


9. Many officers who blame Mr. Rumsfeld are not faulting President Bush — in contrast to the situation in the 1960′s, when both President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (Mr. McNamara, like Mr. Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military itself.)


10. But some are furiously criticizing both, along with the military leadership, like the Army major in the Special Forces. “I believe that a large number of officers hate Rumsfeld as much as I do, and would like to see him go,” he said.


11. “The Army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word,” he added, summarizing conversations with other officers. “For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn’t Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president. Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld’s resignation to mean much.


12. “But this is all academic. Most officers would acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq, regardless of their thoughts on the invasion. We destroyed the internal security of that state, so now we have to restore it. Otherwise, we will just return later, when it is even more terrible.”


13. The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military lives and has no clear end in sight. A midgrade officer who has served two tours in Iraq said a number of his cohorts were angered last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that “tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure,” had been made in Iraq.


14. “We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq,” the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical missions is specific movements against an enemy target. “The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels.”


15. Many officers said a crisis of leadership extended to serious questions about top generals’ commitment to sustain a seasoned officer corps that was being deployed on repeated tours to the long-term counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of the government did not appear to be on the same wartime footing.


16. “We are forced to develop innovative ways to convince, coerce and cajole officers to stay in to support a war effort of national-level importance that is being done without a defensewide, governmentwide or nationwide commitment of resources,” said one Army colonel with experience in Iraq.


17. Another Army major who served in Iraq said a fresh round of debates about the future of the American military had also broken out. Simply put, the question is whether the focus should be, as Mr. Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.


18. In general, the Army and Marines support maintaining beefy ground forces, while the Navy and Air Force — the beneficiaries of much of the high-tech arsenal — favor the leaner approach. And some worry that those arguments have become too fierce.


19. “I think what has the potential for scarring relations is the two visions of warfare — one that envisions near-perfect situational awareness and technology dominance, and the other that sees future war as grubby, dirty and chaotic,” the major said. “These visions require vastly different forces. The tension comes when we only have the money to build one of these forces. Who gets the cash?”


20. Some senior officers said part of their own discussions were about fears for the immediate future, centering on the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with senior officers who share his views and are personally invested in his policies.


21. “If civilian officials feel as if they could be faced with a revolt of sorts, they will select officers who are like-minded,” said another Army officer who has served in Iraq. “They will, as a result, get the military advice they want based on whom they appoint.”


22. Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who teaches Army cadets at West Point, said some of the debates revolved around the issues raised in “Dereliction of Duty,” a book that analyzes why the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed unable or unwilling to challenge civilian decisions during the war in Vietnam. Published in 1997, the book was written by , who recently returned from a year in Iraq as commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.


23. “It’s a fundamentally healthy debate,” Ms. Schake said. “Junior officers look around at the senior leadership and say, ‘Are these people I admire, that I want to be like?’ ”


24. These younger officers “are debating the standard of leadership,” she said. “Is it good enough to do only what civilian masters tell you to do? Or do you have a responsibility to shape that policy, and what actions should you undertake if you believe they are making mistakes?”


25. The conflicts some officers express reflect the culture of commander and subordinate that sometimes baffles the civilian world. No class craves strong leadership more than the military.


26. “I feel conflicted by this debate, and I think a lot of my colleagues are also conflicted,” said an Army colonel completing a year at one of the military’s advanced schools. He expressed discomfort at the recent public criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld and the Iraq war planning by retired generals, including , the former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, who wrote, in  magazine, “My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results.”


27. But the colonel said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct, and prescient, like those of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff. He was shunted aside after telling Congress, before the invasion, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure and stabilize Iraq.


28. Others contend that the military’s own failings are equally at fault. A field-grade officer now serving in Iraq said he thought it was incorrect for the retired generals to call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation. His position, he said, is that “if there is a judgment to be cast, it rests as much upon the shoulders of our senior military leaders.”


29. That officer, like several others interviewed, emphasized that while these issues often occupied officers’ minds, the debate had not hobbled the military’s ability to function in Iraq. “No impact here that I can see regarding this subject,” he said.


***Article End***


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top