So, I bring forth something that has been leaping out at me more and more, as I peruse the news.
In my readings, I have noticed a preponderance of statements about the war in Iraq, or about our most un-esteemed Bush regime. Not unusual in itself, since both are very much newsworthy. Yet, what I find more and more disturbing, is that those interviewed by the journalists, are more often than not camouflaged by the following descriptions attached to their statements:
" asked to be quoted anonymously"
"who asked for anonymity, when it comes to discussing sensitive matters."
"who requested anonymity, to maintain his relationship with congress..."
I particularly liked this one. "a military official who didn't want to undercut the president on the record."
"A U.S. official, who wasn't authorized to speak on the record"
There always have been, and always will be, anonymous statements, or data coming from someone 'seemingly in the know". In my reading of several articles just today, I came across at least one anonymous interviewee in each of them, one article alone contained three anonymous speakers. Thus, I do wonder, what meaning to derive from this seemingly wider spreading phenomenon of people in positions of political power and influence being afraid to speak openly.
2 comments:
It's sad to see, in the country which is supposedly our moral thermometer for the values of free speech, that this is happening more and more.
I suppose, given the character of the person in power, this was to be expected. The bully-boys are at work.
The current administration has set records in terms of generating official secrets, so they've clearly intituted a policy of keeping everyone quiet. It's pretty obvious that somebody close to the ground has severe criticism of the operation.
Post a Comment