Last Updated on February 6, 2022
A recent article at “RantingProfs” accuses a CBS news crew of throwing a “cheap shot” at the pro-war side:
“But CBS’s Mark Knoller, while using the clip of a parent speaking, takes careful pains to point out that she is ‘the mother of a Marine safely home.’
You see the trick here.
Quote a parent, but be sure to quote one whose son is back home with his family, and only that parent, subtly making the argument that her support for the war (presumably the support of that entire group, since Knoller shows us no parent of a fallen troop) is a cheap and easy sentiment, since they have not walked the path Sheehan walks.”
I left a response to this piece:
With all respect, that comment wasn’t part of a ‘trick’ and wasn’t made as a ‘cheap shot.’ It is an important distinction that needs to be made when one is referring to a parent of a soldier. If he HAD used the mother of a fallen soldier who is in support of the war, would you not expect the reporter to have mentioned that she had lost a son, too? Or, in this case, should the reporter NOT have mentioned the fact that this mother who supports the war HADN’T lost a son, so that Cindy Sheehan supporters could have made the complaint that the media is using a pro-war spokesperson who hasn’t suffered the loss that Cindy has, and therefore, doesn’t have the same ‘right’ to speak out?
This ‘trick’ that you accuse the media of having employed is the same complaint that war opponents accuse them of using the other way around. It’s better that the media be upfront about who the soundbites come from rather than try to hide it. (And lest it need to be pointed out, Cindy Sheehan didn’t ‘earn’ the right to be heard; she always had the right to free speech. The war supporters don’t ‘earn’ a BIGGER right to be heard just because they lose a son or daughter in Iraq, either. As Americans, we all have the same rights to speak out, no matter whether we are Gold Star families or not, right?)
Why did the reporter not use a soundbite from the mother of a FALLEN soldier? Perhaps one wasn’t available to him when he got there, or perhaps they were fed up with Cindy getting so much attention that they weren’t willing to talk to someone in the media. Maybe the grieving mothers in attendance didn’t feel like being interviewed.
These things happen on a daily basis in every conceivable story a reporter covers. It’s even possible that without the personal loss, the speaker he did use was the most compelling of the group.
What’s the reason? I have no idea…you’d have to ask that reporter. I do know that everything ISN’T a conspiracy.
It’s not the media that is trying to argue that those who speak out in favor of the war but who haven’t lost a son or daughter there are using “cheap and easy sentiments.” It’s some of the war opponents who are making that case. It’s those who say the war is unquestionably wrong who walk around as if they have a badge of “Courage” pinned on their chests just because they speak out against the war. No other position, according to them, can possibly be courageous or even sincerely felt.
Pointing out the distinction in that news report isn’t a conspiracy to downplay the argument. It is merely pointing out the distinction. No matter what, when that distinction exists, someone is going to jump on it as a sign of bias. If the media does mention it, those who support the war accuse them of being biased against it. If the media doesn’t mention it, those who oppose the war accuse them of being biased for it because they’re ignoring Sheehan’s loss.
Do I deny the fact that in a perfect world, the report would have had two “dueling mothers” who had both lost sons in Iraq? No.
On the other hand, in a perfect world, it wouldn’t matter because we’d all realize that everyone has a right to their position and a right to speak out whether they’d lost a son overseas or not: Cindy Sheehan didn’t “earn” the right to speak out because Casey Sheehan died; she had that right before he ever signed up. And those who speak in favor of the war are not required to have become Gold Star family members before they can be allowed to do so.
But when you consider that the shows that get the ratings today aren’t the nightly news broadcasts but rather shows like “Extra,” “Entertainment Tonight,” “Oprah” and the reality show of the week, you quickly realize that when it comes to the “average” news consumer, this is far from a perfect world.
