"Why is this? I can't believe that there's some sort of widespread media conspiracy to deliberately discredit the man. It's just about as hard to think that there's some sort of herd mentality among newspaper editors that causes them all to give the same misleading angle on a story's headline. It's a mystery to me."
It's laziness. they don't consider that country to be at all important, and the subject of his speach (even when interpreted correctly) to be a bit bizaare for a president. So, the first journalist either misinterpreted what was said and didn't bother to get the context (Why bother? It's only Turkmenistan.) or else just thought it odd for the sitting president of a country to be giving a public speach about oral hygiene. Some subsequent journalist, reading the account will misinterpret the original, since the original was written with an obvious smirk ("Look what this idiot is talking about.") and then report the misinterpretation. Subsequent journalists then report the story without checking the background.
Regarding Rwanda: Political correctness forbids making blacks anything but victims. After all, if it had not been for the evil whites from Europe and America influencing Africa, Africans would all be happy and living as Kings and Queens in a glorious civilization that extends back in time to the beginning (I actually heard someone spout this line in a college English course). The other reason, obviously, is that in order to make the story hit home, they have to show why America should even care about Rwanda.
As far as Condoleeza goes, it's probably an attempt to help out journalists who have been mangling her name for a while.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:49 am (UTC)It's laziness. they don't consider that country to be at all important, and the subject of his speach (even when interpreted correctly) to be a bit bizaare for a president. So, the first journalist either misinterpreted what was said and didn't bother to get the context (Why bother? It's only Turkmenistan.) or else just thought it odd for the sitting president of a country to be giving a public speach about oral hygiene. Some subsequent journalist, reading the account will misinterpret the original, since the original was written with an obvious smirk ("Look what this idiot is talking about.") and then report the misinterpretation. Subsequent journalists then report the story without checking the background.
Regarding Rwanda: Political correctness forbids making blacks anything but victims. After all, if it had not been for the evil whites from Europe and America influencing Africa, Africans would all be happy and living as Kings and Queens in a glorious civilization that extends back in time to the beginning (I actually heard someone spout this line in a college English course). The other reason, obviously, is that in order to make the story hit home, they have to show why America should even care about Rwanda.
As far as Condoleeza goes, it's probably an attempt to help out journalists who have been mangling her name for a while.