Edward
Snowden and English Classes for the DOS
by
Meg Curtis, PhD
American
rhetoric needs an upgrade in the Edward Snowden dilemma. The US
continues to argue that foreign countries should return this man to
his home country, like some runaway Huckleberry Finn. Too often, the
American media refers to him as a high school drop-out, even though
the best sources insist that Snowden completed his GED, took college
courses, and studied foreign languages.
Does
no one realize that attempts to downgrade Snowden's qualifications
reveal the most superficial understanding of the modern technical
workforce? This impression is reinforced by recommendations to have
employees watch each other in the future, and report abberant
behavior to superiors. All such suggestions underscore this fact:
technical workers know more about the US security system than POTUS.
Meanwhile,
the US insists that Snowden damaged US security, even while expecting
countries--which it also insists benefited from Snowden's release of
intelligence data--to return their accused benefactor to his home
base. Do we have this straight? His beneficiaries should act contrary
to their own interests, as described by the US government, and punish
him for—according to the US--benefiting them?
This
argument would not receive a passing grade in any competent freshman
English class. First, it is circular, which is a major rhetorical
fallacy, a flaw in logical thinking. Second, it violates the most
basic relationship between a speaker and his/her audience. Memo to
the DOS: Do NOT ask a foreign country to violate its own interests
without a reward or benefit. Do NOT ask Americans to ignore
ignorance.
So,
who is the audience of the US position on Edward Snowden? The most
obvious answer appears to be the media—if it chooses to repeat
claims without questions. If journalists do ask thoughtful questions, will
they end up like James Rosen, the Fox News Washington Correspondent
harassed by the DOJ? Mindless repetition would be the safe choice, wouldn't it? So,
is the poor quality of journalism here the result of fear?
For
further reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment