CNN’s coverage plays
into U.S.. culture war
Have you seen the CNN video leading up to American soldiers being shot in Iraq by snipers? It is a disgusting display of journalistic judgment, but not for the reasons you might imagine. The knee jerk reaction is to think CNN did this to titillate and gain viewers. While some thinking along those lines might be true, the real reason is far more insidious.
CNN’s reasoning figures prominently in our current cultural wars. It shows graphically how large the divide between liberals and conservatives in the media in this country. Here is the real reason CNN did what it did: CNN is attempting to shed itself of its self-perceived news bias toward America, even its self-perceived news bias toward things Western. Although it is headquartered in Atlanta, the United States, CNN views itself as a global news organization, seeking ephemeral journalistic truth in that heated cauldron of competing worldwide cultural values. In CNN’s collective mind, there are no absolute values in this world. There are simply competing powers that exert values on people.
CNN knew most Americans would recoil in horror from the video, but it also knew hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world would secretly or overtly celebrate the video. That is CNN’s concept of fair and balanced journalism.
Like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who routinely bases her United States court decisions on legal precedents from other parts of the world, or former President Bill Clinton sharing U.S. technology secrets with foreign powers, CNN bases its journalistic judgment on a twisted logic of how foreigners perceive what is just and truthful. In this wispy liberal mental fog, the greatest human experiment of all time – the United States of America – takes a back seat to archaic tribal reasoning and outmoded religious logic, designed not to enlighten but to destroy. CNN should do everything in its power not to abandon our own prism of journalistic truth. Though sometimes flawed, our prism is still the best the world has ever known. There is no valid reason to show Americans being slaughtered. We already know the truths of war.
costing taxpayers a bundle
The citizens of Tupelo are again experiencing the “ great Tupelo spirit of uncooperation” by the city council. This seems to be the case on a lot of issues lately. The progress of our city is being “ held hostage” by a few power hungry ego maniacs who seem to have their own personal agendas. You have five on the city council who say it is their way or no way at all.
In other words either Cook Coggin does the thoroughfare work or it doesn’t get done. How is that suppose to work? Each side is quoting different laws concerning how the selection process is administered. It seems these laws are ambiguous and vague as are many laws in this state. They select a committee to study every issue they attempt to pursue, then when they don’t like what the committees suggest they do what they want to do anyway. Why bother?
The annexation issue is another city council debacle. After several years of legal wrangling, they still haven’t submitted a proper survey of the actual land that is to be annexed. Who is the engineering firm that handled this work? None other than Cook Coggin, the company the five on the council is so persistently adamant about doing the thoroughfare job.
How much more money are the taxpayers going to have to give the lawyers to settle this issue. The attorneys are the only ones that have benefited off this deal so far.
No wonder the council voted to raise taxes. I can understand why these people don’t want to be a part of the city and pay more taxes only to see their money wasted by a dysfunctional city council. As the old saying goes “I wished I could buy them for what they were worth and could sell them for what they thought they were worth.”
People, go to the polls next election and let’s clean house again.
Religious faith allows
for some questioning
Thank you for the excellent editorial, Staying Open, October 14. Many of us have wrestled with the legacy of a Too-Small-God given to us in our younger days. The struggle to leave the Too-Small-God behind may be beneficial but the cost can be high.
I long ago came on the idea that a person convinced that he knows the truth is a person about whom to be careful. Many people suffer emotionally and physically because of some person or group that “knows” the truth. The tendency to imagine a god whose outlook happens to agree with ours but not that of other folks is wide-spread.
In the gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus’ last words on the cross are, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” There is at least a suggestion of doubt in that wrenching question. Perhaps we can be allowed a bit of room for uncertainty and questioning. One of the most appealing aspects of the Old Testament is that characters from Moses to Jonah engage in questioning God’s approach. God’s response may be strong but the questioner is not rejected. At the end of the story, Jonah is still taking issue with God.
Years ago an Episcopal priest told me that God only once allowed himself to be pinned down. The idea that God is limited by a person’s interpretation or understanding is at once both humorous and a display of outstanding arrogance. Without some doubt and uncertainty, Bible study may be little more than rote learning of details and denominational viewpoints. I think that a careful reading of the Bible will support the position that a touch of humility about what we think we know is theologically sound.
Robert A. Stewart
Vote for change
would reunite us
I am being chided by some friends because I have stated I am going to vote for Kenneth Hurt for Congress in the 1st District.
I do not know Hurt.
We need change in Washington.
The past 12 years we have seen all the money put into political
campaigns devoted to disparaging each opponent via the mass media. This leaves many angry. Soon we will have the Divided States of America.
Why don’t we put these mega bucks back into the local precincts to organize campaigns. This would allow local people to take responsibility for their political issues. Maybe this would stop the large corporations from deciding who is going to Washington to serve their needs. Maybe tax dollars could be more wisely used.
I have not heard a disparaging campaign going on here, and I hope we do not have one. If this race was close we would have one. My only thought is we need a change because our three-tier oversight government is not working. Change is the only answer.
Another change that could be made for better government would for our politicians adopt the same principle that professional wrestlers use, “Your opponent has to work tomorrow night.”
Harold W. Ard
God’s coming kingdom
will replace all others
This is to those Republicans who are saying they will vote Democratic this time around. What I want to say to you. I think you have heard only the negative side of the news and I say go to FOX NEWS to hear a fair and balanced side.
So, you don’t like President Bush, so what. I didn’t like Clinton nor do I like Mrs. Clinton, but I don’t go around bad mouthing them. I think it is so un-Christian-like to smear anyone, let alone the president.
Proverbs 18:7 says “ a fools mouth is his ruin and his lips are the
snare of his soul.”
If you think you will be better off with Kennedy, Pelosi, Murtha and/ or Clinton then you really need to rethink your position.
There is enough blame to go to both sides, so don’t just blame Bush for all the problems of this world.
Although nations vie for world control now, one day Christ’s kingdom will come into play and we must have faith in God who controls everything.
Dog owners must
be held responsible
This is about an Oct. 17 article concerning a Pit Bull Attack at the Tenn-Tom Waterway.
The problem is note the dogs but the owners who fail to restrain their dogs when out in public. To say that one is unaware of any leash laws” is the lamest of lame excuses. If an owner cares about his dog(s) he/she will not permit the dog to be out in public and not under control of the owner by leash or carrier. The fact that the owner permits his dog to ride in the back of a truck without being confined to a carrier is conclusive proof that he does not care for the safety of his dog, or for the safety of others as well.
Both parties in this matter are equally to blame for the attack. There does not need to be a ban on certain breeds of dogs, but rather a ban on ignorant owners who fail to provide for the safety of their own dogs as well as the safety of the general public.