Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Chumming
In the fishing world there is a practice called “chumming”. It works
like this. A fisherman tosses a bunch of cut up bait in large quantities
into the place he is going to fish later in order to attract fish to
catch. In the world of the media the practice has a slightly different
slant. It works like this. First invent an accusation ( such as
“President Bush misled the American people when he started the Iraq War).
This statement is the bait bucket. There is nothing to substantiate the
notion but it gets headlines , creates an unproveable and sits on the
bottom to stink and bring in the writers and commentators that are looking
for scraps of anything to comment (feed) on.
After this “chum” has been sitting long enough to really smell, it is
time for the substantiation phase. This is the time for the poll (pole)
and the “catch”. So the anglers of opinion set the hook with a poll
asking,” Did the President deliberately mislead the American people on the
war in Iraq.” And the “fish” unaware they have been chummed bite like
crazy thinking the issue is real and provable .
The results of the poll ( although declared unscientific ) cast a flavor
of legitimacy to the question when in fact there is nothing to
substantiate such an assertion. To know if someone deliberately deceived
one would have to be able to determine the content of the person’s mind at
the time and declare that they knew everything that was true and false
regarding the issue and chose to deceive. Now this could be proven if in
fact a President lied to the American people and then later under the
proof of a DNA sample had to retract that lie but that is not what we are
faced with now. What we are faced with is a President who knew the U.N.
was a do nothing organization that passes meaningless resolutions and will
not back them up. The inspectors were thrown out by Sadaam and this was
an indication he did not want them to find something. Looking at this
history, the world ( even the U.N.) knew what he was capable of. He had
been a threat and he posed a threat as long as he did not comply with the
inspection routine. All of this was glossed over by the press to “chum”
the waters for a political agenda that casts doubt on the President who
does not match their “agenda”.
Now chumming or baiting is a legitimate way to attract fish in certain
areas and for certain species but it is a blatant attempt to mislead by
those who practice it in the media. And remember misleading by a
President is taboo but if undiscovered, perfectly acceptable by those who
throw out loose accusations in an attempt to hook the public. Those who
see this phenomena occurring by our “free” press that seems more intent on
sneaking in their political slants than objective reporting should remind
them when confronted with a bogus poll that they recognize a “chum” when
they see it and we’re not talking about a buddy.
like this. A fisherman tosses a bunch of cut up bait in large quantities
into the place he is going to fish later in order to attract fish to
catch. In the world of the media the practice has a slightly different
slant. It works like this. First invent an accusation ( such as
“President Bush misled the American people when he started the Iraq War).
This statement is the bait bucket. There is nothing to substantiate the
notion but it gets headlines , creates an unproveable and sits on the
bottom to stink and bring in the writers and commentators that are looking
for scraps of anything to comment (feed) on.
After this “chum” has been sitting long enough to really smell, it is
time for the substantiation phase. This is the time for the poll (pole)
and the “catch”. So the anglers of opinion set the hook with a poll
asking,” Did the President deliberately mislead the American people on the
war in Iraq.” And the “fish” unaware they have been chummed bite like
crazy thinking the issue is real and provable .
The results of the poll ( although declared unscientific ) cast a flavor
of legitimacy to the question when in fact there is nothing to
substantiate such an assertion. To know if someone deliberately deceived
one would have to be able to determine the content of the person’s mind at
the time and declare that they knew everything that was true and false
regarding the issue and chose to deceive. Now this could be proven if in
fact a President lied to the American people and then later under the
proof of a DNA sample had to retract that lie but that is not what we are
faced with now. What we are faced with is a President who knew the U.N.
was a do nothing organization that passes meaningless resolutions and will
not back them up. The inspectors were thrown out by Sadaam and this was
an indication he did not want them to find something. Looking at this
history, the world ( even the U.N.) knew what he was capable of. He had
been a threat and he posed a threat as long as he did not comply with the
inspection routine. All of this was glossed over by the press to “chum”
the waters for a political agenda that casts doubt on the President who
does not match their “agenda”.
Now chumming or baiting is a legitimate way to attract fish in certain
areas and for certain species but it is a blatant attempt to mislead by
those who practice it in the media. And remember misleading by a
President is taboo but if undiscovered, perfectly acceptable by those who
throw out loose accusations in an attempt to hook the public. Those who
see this phenomena occurring by our “free” press that seems more intent on
sneaking in their political slants than objective reporting should remind
them when confronted with a bogus poll that they recognize a “chum” when
they see it and we’re not talking about a buddy.
