NSP EDITS // The Hill: Iran Deal “Dangerous”

NSP EDITS // The Hill: Iran Deal “Dangerous”

The Power of Wording

One is not an expert simply because they are a member of an ideologically driven institution with an agenda.

This trend is not new, and it is a familiar problem to many journalists, critical thinkers and those fearing that our society has drifted down a frightening Orwellian path.

The heaviness of the word “expert,” especially in fields most Americans are not well versed in themselves, is dangerous to throw around.

People flock to publications like The Hill and other D.C. based outfits of journalism, as they should believe is wise, in order to understand and defer to the real experts on issues of legislation, politics, and the like.

What we have above is a solitary example of a systematic problem within mainstream media in the United States. Is it really ethical to say that this person is an expert on foreign policy, and broadcast their message to millions? Where was the counter-balance to the claims posited by the “expert?”

Readers, who are busy with their lives and not keen to every single nuance of mass media, would react (just as the American Foreign Policy Institute would like) with disgust to hear that their elected representatives are pursuing a deal with Iran. The Hill ensures this by quoting the Institute’s claim that Iran has a “budget to support terrorism.”

That claim itself is out of balance with the larger geopolitical situation, but not the focus of this piece. When well established publications such as The Hill post articles like this, they are lowering themselves from journalists to practitioners of public relations.

Follow Sam on Twitter.