Author Archives: pc132562

The biggest story in the news right now is the ongoing scandals coming out of the Obama administration. Over the short course of a few days, many big details involving three different stories relating to the administration has come about.

One of the news stories was the recent resignation of IRS chief Steven T. Miller. Miller was forced to quit his position after information came out that proved the IRS was knowingly and willingly targeting Conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, purposely making it very ahrd for these groups to do so. Conservatives have reasons to believe that the target put on their back was due to differences in political agendas, and the liberal administration was attempting to hurt the conservative groups.

The second big scandal to come out of Obama’s administration recently is the hearings on the Benghazi attacks. It has now come to the attention of the American public, after emails being made public, that the CIA revised the reports on the incident up to 12 times before officially releasing their statement, showing that the actual attribution to the cause of the attacks was different from the one given by a CIA official. However, despite this scandal, the emails coming forth prove that President Obama was just as informed as the American public, and the White House knew nothing of this change.

The final news story to come out of the Obama administration in recent days is the scandal in which the phone records of Associated Press journalists were seized by the United States government.  The records, relating to a matter of journalists reporting on an incident of national security, is just one instance of the American government overreaching its boundaries into the free speech territory to harass the press about releasing details of ongoing government operations and national security.

-Paul Campbell

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-benghazi-20130516,0,4147249.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/new-controversies-may-undermine-obama.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/e-mails-show-jostling-over-benghazi-talking-points.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/irs-says-counsel-didnt-tell-treasury-of-tea-party-scrutiny.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journalists-of-the-associated-press-seized-by-us.html?pagewanted=all

As we know, the use of drone strikes by the US government against overseas enemies has been an ongoing issue within our own borders. We’ve heard politicians and citizens argue over whether or not the process of using the machines is ethical, and if it’s legal or not. We saw debates, a filibuster, and constant articles on the issue. However, what we have seen little of is what is happening to those who are closest to the drone strikes. Domestic news sources for the United States rarely mentioned what drones are doing to civilians of the nations we are bombing. On the other hand, when I took a look at international sources, with a focus on Middle Eastern publications, I found them to be writing much more about the plight of those caught between the US and their enemies.

United Press International (UPI) is an international news publication that is based in the US but serves countries all over the world. In an article about the drone strikes and how they’re affecting relations between the United States and civilians of the attack areas, the publication explains how a once pro-American neighborhood turned against the country because of the drone strikes that happened within their community. They felt as though they were being threatened, and they felt unsafe within their homes, causing opposition to the US for making them feel this way. This firsthand information of foreign civilians’ feelings against the US is something we do not normally receive from our domestic news sources.

This is most likely because they do not want to tarnish the US’s image, or harm national security by releasing the information. This is brought up in another one of my sources, Al Jazeera. One article goes in depth about how publications in the US, specifically the NY Times and Washington Post, waited to break the story about a secret base, which the US used to carry out its unmanned drone warfare, for a long time before publishing it because of national security risks. Al Jazeera criticizes the US newspapers for being irresponsible with information that could have helped those affected by the strikes sooner. They felt as though the publications have the duty to inform over what the government tells them to do.

The Pakistani publication Dawn has been highly critical of the Obama administration and their use of drone strikes. They have run numerous articles detailing their criticism. Of their issues with the strikes, the senseless murder of countless civilians caused by the drones is their number one priority in stopping. As I’ve previously mentioned, they ran an article criticizing President Obama for crying for the Sandy Hook children, but ignoring schoolchildren that were killed during a drone strike in Pakistan. This is the kind of reporting we will only see if we turn to international sources. It is good to see our issues from another perspective, and how our government and its policies directly affect civilians in other countries.

As the use of drone strikes continues by the American government, more debate rages on. In recent news, a federal appeals court has struck down the lawsuit the CIA filed in response to being told they must relay the information on drone strikes to an official. The court upheld the ruling that the CIA must show a judge the records they have on drone strikes. This is a victory in favor of those wanting transparency when it comes to unmanned drones attacking American enemies overseas, and just one occurrence in an ongoing series of battles to have the Obama administration release the records on drone strikes. The government views this as classified material, and has not even admitted to the use of drone strikes as weapons to kill overseas enemies, despite it being a known fact by everyone involved with this conflict.
As time goes on, these newspapers are leaning more towards one side or another on this issue. The New York Times recently published an article titled “Obama’s Nixonian Precedent”, in which the author equates Obama’s use of drones to that of Nixon’s secretive bombing of Cambodia. This refers to several incidents when President Nixon bombed parts of Cambodia in secret, without letting anyone know, despite telling officials otherwise, during the Vietnam War. The author argues that Obama’s use of drones, and his reluctance to admit to or acknowledge their use as weapons against US enemies is very similar to the way that Nixon went about his dealings in Cambodia. Just by comparing President Obama to the shady and guarded techniques of former President Nixon shows that the author feels negatively about Obama’s secretive use of drone strikes. The author goes on to say that “Barack Obama is, of course, no Richard Nixon — we expect better of him. And we deserve the transparency he promised us, not a new version of secret warfare.” showing that while the publication is being critical of Obama’s actions, they are not as severe as Nixon’s ever were. However, this article still shows that the New York Times is definitely leaning more towards the anti-drone crowd now.
Another big news story that has come out about drone strikes is how their destructive power is forcing citizens of Afghanistan to flee their homes. Two of the publications I am following, Fox News and Dawn Newspaper, have the same Associated Press article on their websites that details how people living in Afghanistan are leaving their homes in order to get to safety away from the drones that are dropping bombs all around them. They say they can gear the drones all hours of the day, ad it is becoming to frightening to stay where they are.
While the two publications have the same exact article printed on their websites, it is interesting to note that Dawn Newspaper obviously attempted to make the story more personal. They do this by having pictures of those affected by the drone strikes, such as people physically injured, family members grieving for their loved ones, and the aftermath of the destructive missiles. This is in contrast to Fox News, which prints the story with no accompanying pictures. The addition of the images allows the reader to attach a correct mental image of the incidents, and is an example of Dawn Newspaper’s efforts to show readers the severe negative impacts of drone strikes first hand that people cannot see anywhere else.

http://dawn.com/2013/03/28/afghan-villagers-flee-their-homes-blame-us-drones/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/28/afghan-villagers-flee-their-homes-blame-us-drones-as-targeted-killings/

Topic: Drone Strikes

Sources: The NY Times, CNN, Fox News, The Huffington Post, and Dawn Newspaper

In recent years, the United States has developed the process of using unmanned aircraft, called drones, to conduct combat from the air on unsuspecting targets below. The controversial practice has led to many questions and concerns about drone strikes, and the media is currently covering a worldwide debate on their use. Most recently, Kentucky senator Rand Paul led a filibuster to suspend the nomination of pro-drone John Brennan as CIA director. Sen. Paul spoke for almost 13 hours, and talked about the importance of President Barack Obama being transparent with his drone use, and whether or not the president could use drones against an American citizen who is an enemy of the government overseas, reiterating the concerns many people have had about drones in recent months.

So far most of the news outlets covering the drone story have not had a large bias against one side or the other. I believe this is because the use of drones is a touchy and confusing subject, and there is no outstanding consensus on drone strikes for either political party or the American public.

The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News all have broad reports on the drone strikes, and their articles cover a wide range of topics including debates, opinion pieces, and general related reports on what is happening within the US government in regards to drone strikes. There is not much bias coming from any of the articles, which surprised me, especially considering how Fox News can be a very biased news source. However, besides word choice and dealings with strong party issues, reports on drones from the three sources basically read the same.

On the other hand, I found that the Huffington Post was very biased in the way they reported about drone strikes. Taking an anti-drone standpoint, almost all of the articles on Huff Post that deal with drones are adamant in their rejection of the use of drones. This is similar to the last of my five news sources, which is Dawn Newspaper. A source from Pakistan, Dawn is able to provide firsthand accounts and opinions from where most of the drone strikes occur. Since the country witnesses the destructive aftermath of missiles launched from drones to kill an American enemies often, the paper is entirely sure of its anti-drone opinions. I found an article that was released in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings here in the US that criticized President Obama for becoming emotional when American schoolchildren were murdered, while he shows no remorse for ordering drone strikes that murder innocent Pakistani civilians, including children. This goes to show how sure Dawn Newspaper is in its anti-drone stance.