The other day, while reviewing a Star Tribune article about the UN Oil for Food scandal, I came across a paragraph that sent my media bias sensors off. Not content to rage against the machine with a blog post, I wrote that paragraph's author, seeking answers and redress. Here is the unedited exchange, names hidden to protect the innocent:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. REPORTER - regarding your article on Senator Norm Coleman's investigation into the UN Oil for Food program (published on Nov. 16), I took note of this sentence:
"The Bush administration has seized on the reports to underscore its belief that the U.N. sanctions were not an effective constraint on Saddam's long-term military ambitions, thus providing further justification for the U.S. military intervention."
I find the use of the term "seized on" to be curious. The Merriam-Webster definitions of "seize" being:
1) to lay hold of or take possession by force
2) arrest
3) understand
4) to attack or overwhelm physically: afflict
synonyms: take, grasp, clutch, snatch, or grab
With the exception of definition 3 (which makes no sense in context with your sentence), each one of these terms has a negative connotation. This implies that the Bush administration's use of these reports to provide evidence to its claims (of the need to bypass the UN regarding Iraq), is illegitimate or questionable. Or perhaps that their use of this particular justification is a desperate gesture, as a man would seize a life raft if drowning.
The term "seized on" is clearly value-laden. It seems to me a more balanced, and accurate, term to use would have been "referenced" or "cited". What were your thoughts regarding the use of "seized on"? Or did you not give it any thought, and this was the term that naturally sprang from your own opinion of the situation?
Please let me know, thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CURIOUS CITIZEN
Thanks for the note, and your interest. I confess that you gave the phrase a lot more thought than I did.
Looking over your analysis, I would say that the meaning I intended is closest to the first definition you found, i.e., to take possession (forcefully, if not by force). That is, I think it's fair to say that the White House has taken hold of these new reports after the fact, since the allegations about the abuse of the oil-for-food program did not come to light until after the invasion of Iraq. That is not to place a value judgment on what happened. It's merely a fact that these new revelations have been used as further justification for a policy that was in place before they were uncovered. "Seized on..." is a common phrase used to describe a process where new facts are adduced, ex post facto, in support of a previously established argument.
Anyway, that's how I meant it. No negative slant was intended on my part, and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got. Thanks for writing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still contend "seized on" is a negatively value laden term, and that "referenced" or "cited" would be an improvement in objectivity. But the reporter presents a reasonable argument for its use. I commend him for taking the time to explain it to me and I withdraw this specific insinuation of bias. He will not receive today's Mr. Yuk salute.
That is reserved for Nick Coleman, who, in the course of exploiting a murder to bolster his self image as the imperious conscience of the Twin Cities, drops this sentence on the masses:
Outside in the parking lot, right over the spot where Tremaine Finley bled, a City of Lakes street truck pulled up, and the driver got out to go into the grocery and buy a snack. That left a guy named Bruce resting in the passenger's seat, listening to a right-wing blowhard on the radio.
Assuming Coleman didn't just make this whole thing up (a big assumption), this encounter must have occurred sometime yesterday. Meaning "that guy named Bruce" couldn't have been listening to the Northern Alliance Radio Network (12 - 3 PM Saturdays. Replay 9 PM - midnight, Sundays). Which is too bad. We'll take all the publicity we can get - even a vague, snide mention in a Nick Coleman column. (Who was he talking about? That frothing maniac Hugh Hewitt and his wild-eyed campaign to help the Salvation Army?)
Regarding NARN, I'm taking tomorrow's show off. But I have it on good authority that the Elder and the rest of the crew will be blowing harder than ever. And maybe, just maybe, the topic of Nick Coleman will be addressed. And if Nick isn't listening, well, we'll always have "a guy named Bruce" in our corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment