American politicians’ penchant to control mass media is not a shocking revelation. Jasper Irving, a Senator in Lions for Lambs is no exception. When “the future of the Republican Party” calls on TV journalist Janine to discuss a timeline for the War on Terror, it is merely a pretext for selling his “real story” (his new military strategy in Afghanistan) to Janine (the TV network). Although the interview was originally requested for the Senator’s own purposes, the conversation eventually progresses into an entertaining ping pong match between the journalist and the Senator about politics and policy. Janine is incisive in delving deeper into Irving’s sugar coated words. In response to “…whoever takes the high ground has the ability to observe, prerogative to attack and the oppurtunity to preside,” Janine concludes the whole matter by asking, “So we’re going to be there for good?” in which the Senator only smiles and says “I said constant presence, not permanent”. For Afghanistan, there is only a fine difference between the two.
While Meryl Street embodies an entirely fictional TV journalist, she raises many pertinent questions about America’s present political stance (the war in Iraq and other wars in the Middle Eat). Perhaps most people are aware that (thanks to the mass media) “Sadaam violated 16 UN resolutions while America… all the while France, China and Russia... [continues]
Cite This Essay
(2008, 10). Lions for Lambs. StudyMode.com. Retrieved 10, 2008, from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Lions-Lambs-173578.html
"Lions for Lambs" StudyMode.com. 10 2008. 10 2008 <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Lions-Lambs-173578.html>.
"Lions for Lambs." StudyMode.com. 10, 2008. Accessed 10, 2008. http://www.studymode.com/essays/Lions-Lambs-173578.html.