What's Really Going On?
At the risk of sounding as if I've betrayed the very nature of the political word embedded in the address to this site, I've become more and more fascinated about the very possibility that our sources of news, namely newspapers and cable news networks, create the reality in which they are reporting on. In other words, how much of what we consume is actually true to fact and not as perceived by those reporters who are employed by a politically influenced conglomerate? Who is just towing the party line and who is reporting the facts on the straight and narrow? It's hard to say, and I think the notion that "unless you've been there" takes on new significance in our world that is proliferated by sources of information that can be finely attuned to the very ideology of the reader him or herself. If one were so inclined, they could find just about any reportage on any topic as seen through the lens of one's choice, be it liberal, moderate, or conservative in nature. In fact, that may be the very problem with the advent of the numerous venues in which it's now possible to foist one's opinions on the world. One would assume that it's possible to locate a reasonably balanced opinion and reportage in at least one venue, but I'm not so sure.

Nearly every day the New York Times publishes an article about the inner workings of the Bush administration, and, obviously, they print more when there is a particular event that dominates the headlines, and they seem to publish even more when there is an event that can be described as being bad for the administration, which, at this point, you can take your pick of many. What worries me is that on these occasions, it's easy to find articles and editorials that report on the mental state of the those who make up the inner circle. For whatever reason, they almost always seem to reveal that the administration is concerned, worried, or in a frantic state over some event or another. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be in any of these conditions; in fact, they probably should be if they're affected by anything at all. However, what concerns me is that I wonder on occasion how much of this is real. Are they really in such a state of panic, or is that the way the reporters want to perceive the situation, and, further, are they writing as such because they know that their editors and, ultimately, the publisher wants to portray things as such?

The issue grows even more troublesome after days pass in which one encounters the same descriptions. The story, as they say, "grows legs" and it assumes a life of its own and, more importantly, a reality all its own. I read these passages on, what seems like, a daily basis, and I wonder, "Is this really how it is?" For an administration that's supposedly in such a state of panic, they sure act as if they're in control. They never seem to betray the fact that they are in the midst of a crisis. Of course, this particular group never seems to act as if anything is going wrong, so it's hard to judge what exactly is going on with them, and I put nothing past them in their efforts to appear in control. I just find it beyond comprehension that this reporting is in fact reporting the real situation. Nothing seems to change because of it, and one would think that a group afflicted by so many crisis would eventually reach a breaking point. Of course, they don't and things return to the status quo, whatever that may be.

My point is that I'm finding it harder to separate the buckwheat from the shaft, so to speak, and it's growing more and more apparent to me that there has to be, to sum extent, a bias to news reporting. It can't be both ways, gloomy assessments on one hand and sunny on the other. Where's the middle ground and the actual perception of what's going on?