Canada feels Bush's wrath, soybeans next

I was watching ABC World News Tonight (a misnomer, as it turns out, unless the world consists of America and the Middle East), and the anchorbimbo mentioned Canadian elections in which Conservatives seem poised to topple Liberals after thirteen years in power. During the blurb, that lasted all of a minute, the only thing ABC saw fit to say about the Liberals? They "angered the Bush administration because of their opposition to the Iraq war."

Why choose that particular (and particularly irrelevant) tidbit of information, of all the possible tidbits out there? They could've mentioned the no-confidence vote. They could've mentioned the ethics scandal that led to it. Instead they made an implicit, and misleading connection between the Liberal's lack of support for Bush's war and their failure in the elections.

Aside from this, why should it matter to us that Mr. Bush was angered? Is this news? I mean, why is ABC reporting the news from Mr. Bush's perspective all the sudden? When they report that, say, soybeans don't lower cholesterol as had been thought, do they say, "and this has irritated the president, who is fond of having his Chex with soy milk"?


Post a Comment

<< Home