Newspaper's editorial evaluation - Essay Example

Question 2 Choose a newpaper Editorial and evaluate it. Total Word Count: 996 Broad Standardisation 1: The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop 'weapons of mass destruction' and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq 1.2: Bush's repeated and emphatic claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was prepared to use-a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times' own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered with credulous reports based on faulty information. 1.3: Bush's charges that Iraq concealed chemical and biological weapons were unequivocal. 1.4: The NYT featured the position of the UN nuclear weapons inspectors in another editorial where it also stated that Iraq had in its possession Weapons of Mass Destruction. 1.5: Bush pushed for the invasion of Iraq based on the reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 2.1: The Iraqi regime is believed to have stockpiled biological and chemical weapons based on intelligence reports. 2.2: The reports stated that Iraq has manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that can disperse chemical and biological weapons. 2.3 Intelligence reports gathered by the US and other governments stated that Iraq possessed and concealed lethal weapons. 3.1: The New York Times' editorial page accepted these claims and incorporated them into the paper's own arguments. 3.2: The United Nations Security Council Team for the first time acknowledges that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction present in Iraq. 4.1: The Bush Administration admitted that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. 4.2: The UN Security Council acknowledges that there are no WMDs present in Iraq. C : The Bush theory on Iraqi stockpiling and concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction is pure rhetoric and was not backed up by solid intelligence data gathering. Evaluation: The purpose of this editorial article of the New York Times is to convince the audience that the revision of stance by the New York Times with respect to the Iraq War does not absolve them from the culpability of misleading their readers of their initial position. The editorial article attempts to show that the arguments expounded by President Bush that Iraq had nuclear weapons were not compelling. There are other ways to prove and investigate to determine if Iraq indeed had nuclear weapons. The argument appeared as an opinion piece in the New York Times and is written in a familiar style appropriate to that context. The style is formal and the author rarely adopted emotionally charged language, writing in a mostly composed, brief and judicious style. Its simplicity and clarity is a veritable proof of strength of the argument, since many readers will have varied views on the Iraq War. This text was written in a respectful way that will not annoy the key officials of the Bush Administration. The use of persuasive language is well-defined and well-chosen. The argument is neither bombastic nor incendiary in its approach of the subject matter. For instance, the use of the phrase "Iraqi WMDs as a "possibility" is a way of making the mistake of NYT stand on the Iraq War less horrendous. The main argument has three premises. The first two premises present the stand of President George Bush, the UN Security Council, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the New York Times on the justification for the invasion of Iraq. The third premise focused on the change of stand by the NYT on the Iraq War brought about by the lack of physical evidence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction WMD). This is a positive premise since the article bases its argument on the subsequent UN reports on the presence of WMD in Iraq. However, these three premises are still weak. They do not support the conclusion that NYT and US President George Bush are culpable for their stand. There is a need to add many supporting premises such as the number of military casualties (US and international military), the numbers of seriously wounded US soldiers and the number of Prisoners of War to present a more careful and comprehensive debate on this issue. We focus on the evaluation of each of the subarguments, since even if the main premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion, our acceptance of the conclusion would still be contingent on our acceptance of those premises. Evaluation: In the first subargument, the article presents the case that the New York Times relied heavily on the information from US President George Bush and the UN Security Council without verifying the said information from other auxiliary sources or information channels. The NYT went ahead devoting the editorials on making a premise (the presence of WMDs in Iraq) into an actual fact. The second argument continues with the support of the initial position of the NYT supported by the stand of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The NYT relied heavily on government sources of the US and UK. Hence, the NYT editorials supporting the Iraq War continued. There is a normative aspect to this argument, since the invasion and subsequent American occupation of Iraq was justified on the basis of international security from potential nuclear weapons of destruction. The third part of the argument states that the NYT continued its editorials supporting the Iraq War inspite of initial reports from the UN Security Council inspectors. The strongest evidence against this argument is premise 1 and premise 2. The fourth main argument states that the change of stand of the New York Times regarding the Iraq War does not free it from the liability of its initial position of supporting the war. The New York Times has to do something to make this right. In addition, the fourth argument also states that US President George Bush also has to do likewise since he has misled an entire nation on the WMDs which led to the Iraq War. Conclusion: The Bush theory on Iraqi stockpiling and concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction is pure rhetoric and it has misled the New York Times. Read More