Current Event (14 September 2006)

Bush defends war on terror http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/04/1800812-cp.html The author is letting her opinion affect the facts, trying to pursuade the reader to agree with her. The author, Beth Gorham's, point-of-view affects the position she gives on the issue. She is a Canadian reflecting on the American War on Terror. Although Canadians are fighting in the war, they are not as directly involved in Iraq as American troops, and therefore may have different opinions. She is also a journalist, not in the armed forces, and does not experience the affects of the war firsthand. Everything about her life affects her position on President Bush's 9/11 address. This is a public document that the author has written, which means she meant for her opinion on this topic to be read by others. Gorham provides the reader with facts and opinions, but many of her "facts" contain elements of propaganda. This makes the information distorted, to sway the reader's opinion. She subtly expresses her diagreement with Bush in her statements, such as in this sentence: "Bush has been blitzing the airwaves in the run-up to the Sept. 11 milestone, hoping to retain the upper hand on terror...." Gorham is implying that she does not believe Bush actually has an 'upper hand on terror' and that he is despretly trying to regain it. She also points out that she disagrees with the President in this sentence: "He's been casting anti-terrorism as a broad ideological struggle like the Cold War or the fight against Nazism in the Second World War, while insisting that a democratic Iraq is a vital step." Gorham obviously does not believe that the War on Terror is equivalent to these major wars in history, and seems to think that he is exaturating the situation. She also seems to disagree with the White House in this statement: "He went further, in a 17-minute speech the White House insisted was not political." Gorham is trying to convince the reader very ingeniously that the speech was if fact political. Another time when the author tries to change the reader's opinion is the following sentence: "He acknowledged that Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11, something a sizable group of Americans still believe after five years of Bush and others linking the two." She is cleverly hinting to the reader that she believes Bush mislead Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terroist attacks. She again tries to change the reader's position on the issue in this sentence: "Bush's recent public relations offensive included a well-timed announcement last week that top terrorists once held in secret CIA prisons, including the reported 9-11 mastermind, were going to the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." Gorham is telling the reader that she thinks Bush deliberately made this announcement when Americans were preoccupied remembering the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and were filled with anger towards the terrorists. She believes that Bush felt the country would be more accepting to his confession at this particular time, and was trying to play them. Gorham is additionally expressing her point-of-view in this sentence: "But Bush gave no ground Monday on the U.S. presence in Iraq, where more than 2,600 U.S. soldiers have died." She feels that the president omitted a key and important part in his speech, and that he should have talked about the US's position in the war, but avoided the topic to decrease anger towards him and his administration on such a somber and sad day. The author has deliberately used words and phrases in a way to affect the reader's opinion in a slyand cunning way. The author is very close to the event, as it happened the day before she published this article. She is a primary source, referring to the speech she personally watched George Bush give. Gorham's information is very up-to-date and relevant. Beth Gorham does use strong words to suggest bias. She says "blitzing" instead of targeting and "insisting" versus telling. She also says "well-timed" to suggest she feels that the timing of the announcement was perfect for Bush to trick people into agreeing with his belief. Many of the words that Gorham uses describe her point-of-view, instead of unpersuasively talking about Bush's address to the nation. The author, Beth Gorham, is using propaganda in her article to try to influence the reader to view the issue her way. She very convincingly uses words and phrases to sway the reader's opinion, so one must read extremely carefully as to not be influenced by the writer's delivery or our own biases.