Short Essay 1

Short Essay 1:

The Multiple Lives of a News Story

The Weekly Standard magazine has been seen to have a conservative bias throughout its many news stories. In one article titled, “Brennan’s Evasions”, Stephen F. Hayes criticizes John Brennan’s responses during his hearing for the director position of the US Central Intelligence Agency, in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Hayes even states in his article that, “Brennan’s answers before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were problematic”, referring mostly to his responses on CIA sanctioned drone assaults. By doing this, Hayes cements a tone of a traditional and conservative bias. The format and diction of this article also play direct roles in the right-winged inclination of the audience that this site usually attracts.

            My goal for this paper is to re-write or “forward” this article with a less conservative bias. I will be aiming to recast this story for a younger audience that is more likely to get their news from sources such as The Nation or the Daily Show, which are more progressive than The Weekly Standard. In order to adjust this story for a more liberal and youthful audience, I will familiarize the diction, modify the partial tone, and reconstruct the argument against John Brennan. Events surrounding the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, just like all other political events, can be understood in very differing ways.

“Brennan for the Central Intelligence Agency”

            John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to be the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency is well versed in US counter terrorism and is a 25-year CIA veteran. He has been intensely scrutinized by several Republican senators suspicious about targeted killings, a lack of transparency, and the controversy surrounding “enhanced” interrogation techniques. After being interrupted several times at his hearing with the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence, the room was mostly cleared for the rest of the hearing. Republican senator, Marco Rubio frustrated and forcefully questioned Brennan about an al-Qaeda operative held by the Tunisian government. However, this interrogation was unwarranted because the suspect in question could not have been detained within Tunisia owing to the fact that no Tunisian laws were ever broken by the man. According to an article in The Economist, Brennan addressed his stance on unmanned drones aimed to track and kill terrorist suspects. He argued that drone strikes have been used as a final play to save American lives rather than an offensive tactic to handicap terrorist groups without regard for collateral damage. Brennan has even embarked on the discussion about the inaccuracies of drone attacks and how his position could change as head of the CIA.

The investigations and inquiry into John Brennan has encompassed an examination of his past decisions and endorsements of CIA operations. This inquiry has largely been focusing on Brennan’s support of drones used to take out leaders of al-Qaeda and the dispute about American-born casualties. However, through extreme inspection of Brennan’s career and the role he will play in the future success of the CIA, he has been able to answer tough questions with both confidence and assertiveness that make him a hopeful candidate to become the incumbent director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

Link to original article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/brennan-s-evasions_700510.html