Skip to main content

AOL sensationalizes headline pertaining to drone strikes

It often times befuddles me why so many people are paranoid that the federal government is coming after them. Then there are the rare occurrences when I can temporarily understand why this is.

Courtesy of AOL (America Online - yes, it still exists), the following headline was showcased earlier today - "Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans."

I imagine a lot of the before-mentioned paranoid folk saw that headline and thought to themselves, "See? I told everyone, but they wouldn't listen to me. This is why I stocked up on all those assault rifles, twinkies, and Ayn Rand books."

If one were to actually click on the headline provided by AOL, it would lead him/her to an article at The Huffington Post, which is titled something different. This article is titled, "DOJ Drones Paper: Obama's Second-Term Cabinet, Agenda Faces New Scrutiny." Yes, the title is slightly different than the one AOL implied - "Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans."

Not far into the article, the following is noted - "The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of 'senior operational leaders' of al Qaeda or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S."

I'm not going to get into whether or not I believe, if this report is indeed accurate, that the actions taken by the administration are moral or immoral. I believe healthy arguments can be prompted by both sides of the argument. However, wasn't the AOL headline a bit on the sensationalistic side?

Let's see here... "Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans." Ah, that's not going to frighten anyone. The headline is giving off the impression that the federal government can legally kill any American. It doesn't matter if he or she is shopping at Wal-Mart for Christmas presents, getting $20 of gas at a Marathon gas station, or drinking a bucket of Bud Lights at a Hooter's joint near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Be on the lookout, because you could be the next victim!

When delving into the article, it clearly states that these "Americans" are affiliated with al Qaeda or like group. The AOL headline would be much more accurate and much less fear-invoking if instead of reading "Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans," it read, "Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans Affiliated with the Terrorist Group Al-Qaeda." Since everyone I know in this country can be classified as an American and no one I personally know can be classified as being affiliated with al Qaeda, this alteration in wording makes just a slight difference.

My guess is the next AOL headline will read something like this - "Cops Can Shoot People," and when looking inside the article, it makes it known that cops can only shoot people when their lives or others' lives are in jeopardy. Again, just a slight difference there...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/doj-drones-paper_n_2619582.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D266012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i...