The MSM May Be Beneficial To Some, But they Are A Detriment To The Nation
OK. Before everyone starts to go off half-cocked over the title, just hear me out. Readers of our site know that Marcie and I have a mind for understanding the law. Because of that respect, we abide by it, and we call others on it when the law is being broken. Both of us would proudly stand and defend the Constitution, and the rights enumerated within it, and that goes double for the press.
In a free society, the press--a free press, that is--acts as another check against the federal government. IUf they think someone's doing something wrong, they can call attention to that, and raise the public's interest in it. Like it or not, we need them in a free society as much as we need laws, and a government to enforce those laws. So, no, I'm not advocating any sort of "state" control over the media. We need them. And bloggers, kicking them around brings a certain level of sick, twisted joy to our lives. (Hey, we didn't start this side of the culture war, but we'll sure as heck engage, and win the day.)
I had actually wanted to post this up tomorrow, but that's looking a bit difficult right now. So, allow me the honor of opining the media's behavior in the last few months.
The MSM has shown its true colors. They can proclaim innocence and an unbiased nature, but it's not washing with the majority of the informed Americans in the country. (Evidence of this is lthe last presidential election where CBS News, led by Dan Rather, put together another hit piece on President Bush in an effort to swing opinion prior to the election. This eleventh hour attempt--this time around--was outed as a hoax, and Dan Rather lost his job because of that.) That's "Exhibit A" for the prosecution's side. According to CBS, and Rather himself, the information provided in a news story he ran with was based on uncorroborated evidence. In other words, it was rumor. It was innuendo. And once proven to be false, Rather simply dug in his heels, and refused to budge; he even went as far to proclaim them "fake, but accurate" shortly after the caterwauling from the people started. "Rathergate" was the first crack in the wall the media had built.
Eason Jordan fell next. At the Davos Conference in Switzerland, Jordan accused our troops of committing war crimes in the form of killing journalists, kidnapping them and torturing them, and regularly targeting them in combat. Make no mistake. These charges would technically be considered a war crime. Journalists in a combat zone are non-combatants, and both sides are to take care in avoiding any violence in their direction if it can be helped. And while he did backpedal on the charge when challenged, he refused to back down from his accusations. Two weeks of a s**t-storm ensued with bloggers demanding proof to what he said. CNN finally had enough of the controversy, and allowed him to resign his position as a chief news executive. What added to the problems was that Jordan admitted that his CNN bureau in Baghdad had covered up Saddam's atrocities. Call it a witch-hunt if you want, but that sort of journalism has no place at a mainstream outlet.
In 2005, the Washington Post ran two stories that exposed two operations being conducted by the United States. The first was a story regarding rendition flights--a program that was quite accepted under President Clinton. The other was about secret CIA holding facilities abroad where interrogations of captured terrorists caught abroad was being conducted. Both operations were quite secret, and the paper's release of that information put the operatives in those places, conducting those operations, in danger. It raised such a stink that the EU conducted an investigation into the operations, yet could find no such interrogation centers on their shores. The government came out and admitted both, though, on the heels of the stories' exposure.
In December of 2005, the New York Times ran a story about a clandestine NSA program, instituted in the days and weeks after 11 September, that was designed to seek out our enemies here in America. It involved watching e-mails, and recording phone calls of suspected terrorists. The administration had specifically asked the Times not to run the story because of the sensitivity of the program. Basically a "If you run this story, our enemy will know about it" explanation was given by the administration; one that makes more sense than the Times' feeble defense in revealing a covert NSA program. And the New York Times claimed it was all for the public good. That an informed public--the general public--could handle the release. The Times achieved two things with the revelation of this program. It set the nutters off, running amok, and accusing the government of being "Big Brother." Secondly, our enemies did find out about this program that was designed to catch them.
Six months later the Times upped the ante by revealing the financial tracking program the administration was using against our enemeis. Terrorism isn't cheap. You need men, equipment, weapons, and the ability to put your teams in place around the world. Likewise, those teams need money. Many banks around the world don't bat an eyelash about handling wire transfers, even if they are handled by people considered terrorists. The SWIFT ( Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) program was a Brussels-based group that collects financial data. We were looking, again, to stop our enemy by tying up their money. To quote Harrison Ford from Patriot Games: "I will put such a strangle hold on your gun money that you'll be out in the street throwing rocks!" That's what we were trying to do with SWIFT, and the Times, again, felt it was "in the public's interest" to let America (and the world) know what we were doing. What is even better is that the LA Times is equally culpable as they ran a similar story the same day. It had nothing to do with the public's interest at all. In the end it came down to who scooped whom.
This past Wednesday, the Boston Globe opened up its editorial pages to Maen Areikat, the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department. He put together a feeble defense of both the Palestinians and Hezbollah in their current conflict with Israel. He made a couple of cutting comments but nothing more than the same old song and dance. So, basically, the Boston Globe allowed an "official" from a terrorist organization spew propaganda in their paper. And they were all right with that. Granted the piece was an opinion piece, but there's just something wrong with allowing one's enemy some sort of offical representation in this nation. It equates to me, at least, to allowing one of Goebbels' people write op-eds in America during World War II. You just don't do it. Apparently emboldened by the lack of serious outrage over that, the LA Times outdid its previous blunder by giving Imad Moustapha--the Syrian Ambassador--1000 words to parrot the other side's talking points. In a biting editorial, Mr. Moustapha pushed their side--that of Hezbollah--of the overall argument using their propaganda.
The point of this post is to show the readers a couple of things. Gone are the days of the media's "unbiased" reporting. Media moguls have come and gone, and had their fair share of responsibility regarding the news itself from William Randoplh Hearst to "Pinch" Sulzberger, some of the more powerful ones just can't resist tweaking things here and there. But for far too long, they got away with it, and no one really noticed. Along come bloggers, and a better informed public, and the media's world starts falling apart around them. The dinosaur media, as many bloggers have taken to calling them, knows that it's lifetime is short. The twilight of their era is slowly becoming nothing more than a twinkiling in their collective eye.
They could end that trend if they adapted to their "new surroundings," i.e. The Internet, and drop the old guard from these outlet's ranks. The old guard in the media, so firmly entrenched, and carrying a great deal of power within the offices, is killing journalism. Citizen journalists do the job better because unlike the media, our readers can discern the difference between "news" and "opinion." Most bloggers (all the ones we read) will separate them. We provide defenses and arguments for the story; in essence, questions left unasked. We provide proof for opinions we make, and give background where it's needed. The media doesn't. It runs with a story--an "expose," if you will--and if questioned on it, they get indignant.
The fourth rail has practically elevated itself to a psuedo-religion. Those in the grand pantheons will tow the line or "@$$e$ will sting." Many have been expelled from them, and among the notables is Bernie Goldberg. His opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal berating CBS News and Dan Rather cost him his friendship with Dan Rather. And after that piece, he wasn't shown the door yet, but he was certainly being handed his hat. And he is cursed and condemned on the Left. Sound familiar? It should because the same thing has happened to Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Two icons in the Democratic Party that were shunned because they spoke contrary to an integral argument of the party.
The NY Times, itself, is guilty of doing this. Judith Miller refused to testify to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury regarding her source. she was put in jail in an attemtp to compel her to reveal that source. She went to jail, and the Times went nuts with fawning pieces and profiles about this "courageous" journalist; one certainly destined for the higher levels of the pantheon. Then, she spoke with her source, and the source gave their OK. She testified, and that fateful turn of events brought her crashing back down to Earth. She was let go from the Times, and the same people who sang her praises ripped her to shreds.
The media's transparency is apparent when it comes to showing their ugly side. But that ugly side, as I think I've shown fairly well, is that they have no regard for this nation. They reveal secrets and they give our enemies a voice. These are not patriots at all. They're slick used car salesmen who would sell out just about anyone to make a buck, and put themselves on top for twenty-four hours. Too bad we're about three hours ahead of them most of the time.
Publius II
OK. Before everyone starts to go off half-cocked over the title, just hear me out. Readers of our site know that Marcie and I have a mind for understanding the law. Because of that respect, we abide by it, and we call others on it when the law is being broken. Both of us would proudly stand and defend the Constitution, and the rights enumerated within it, and that goes double for the press.
In a free society, the press--a free press, that is--acts as another check against the federal government. IUf they think someone's doing something wrong, they can call attention to that, and raise the public's interest in it. Like it or not, we need them in a free society as much as we need laws, and a government to enforce those laws. So, no, I'm not advocating any sort of "state" control over the media. We need them. And bloggers, kicking them around brings a certain level of sick, twisted joy to our lives. (Hey, we didn't start this side of the culture war, but we'll sure as heck engage, and win the day.)
I had actually wanted to post this up tomorrow, but that's looking a bit difficult right now. So, allow me the honor of opining the media's behavior in the last few months.
The MSM has shown its true colors. They can proclaim innocence and an unbiased nature, but it's not washing with the majority of the informed Americans in the country. (Evidence of this is lthe last presidential election where CBS News, led by Dan Rather, put together another hit piece on President Bush in an effort to swing opinion prior to the election. This eleventh hour attempt--this time around--was outed as a hoax, and Dan Rather lost his job because of that.) That's "Exhibit A" for the prosecution's side. According to CBS, and Rather himself, the information provided in a news story he ran with was based on uncorroborated evidence. In other words, it was rumor. It was innuendo. And once proven to be false, Rather simply dug in his heels, and refused to budge; he even went as far to proclaim them "fake, but accurate" shortly after the caterwauling from the people started. "Rathergate" was the first crack in the wall the media had built.
Eason Jordan fell next. At the Davos Conference in Switzerland, Jordan accused our troops of committing war crimes in the form of killing journalists, kidnapping them and torturing them, and regularly targeting them in combat. Make no mistake. These charges would technically be considered a war crime. Journalists in a combat zone are non-combatants, and both sides are to take care in avoiding any violence in their direction if it can be helped. And while he did backpedal on the charge when challenged, he refused to back down from his accusations. Two weeks of a s**t-storm ensued with bloggers demanding proof to what he said. CNN finally had enough of the controversy, and allowed him to resign his position as a chief news executive. What added to the problems was that Jordan admitted that his CNN bureau in Baghdad had covered up Saddam's atrocities. Call it a witch-hunt if you want, but that sort of journalism has no place at a mainstream outlet.
In 2005, the Washington Post ran two stories that exposed two operations being conducted by the United States. The first was a story regarding rendition flights--a program that was quite accepted under President Clinton. The other was about secret CIA holding facilities abroad where interrogations of captured terrorists caught abroad was being conducted. Both operations were quite secret, and the paper's release of that information put the operatives in those places, conducting those operations, in danger. It raised such a stink that the EU conducted an investigation into the operations, yet could find no such interrogation centers on their shores. The government came out and admitted both, though, on the heels of the stories' exposure.
In December of 2005, the New York Times ran a story about a clandestine NSA program, instituted in the days and weeks after 11 September, that was designed to seek out our enemies here in America. It involved watching e-mails, and recording phone calls of suspected terrorists. The administration had specifically asked the Times not to run the story because of the sensitivity of the program. Basically a "If you run this story, our enemy will know about it" explanation was given by the administration; one that makes more sense than the Times' feeble defense in revealing a covert NSA program. And the New York Times claimed it was all for the public good. That an informed public--the general public--could handle the release. The Times achieved two things with the revelation of this program. It set the nutters off, running amok, and accusing the government of being "Big Brother." Secondly, our enemies did find out about this program that was designed to catch them.
Six months later the Times upped the ante by revealing the financial tracking program the administration was using against our enemeis. Terrorism isn't cheap. You need men, equipment, weapons, and the ability to put your teams in place around the world. Likewise, those teams need money. Many banks around the world don't bat an eyelash about handling wire transfers, even if they are handled by people considered terrorists. The SWIFT ( Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) program was a Brussels-based group that collects financial data. We were looking, again, to stop our enemy by tying up their money. To quote Harrison Ford from Patriot Games: "I will put such a strangle hold on your gun money that you'll be out in the street throwing rocks!" That's what we were trying to do with SWIFT, and the Times, again, felt it was "in the public's interest" to let America (and the world) know what we were doing. What is even better is that the LA Times is equally culpable as they ran a similar story the same day. It had nothing to do with the public's interest at all. In the end it came down to who scooped whom.
This past Wednesday, the Boston Globe opened up its editorial pages to Maen Areikat, the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department. He put together a feeble defense of both the Palestinians and Hezbollah in their current conflict with Israel. He made a couple of cutting comments but nothing more than the same old song and dance. So, basically, the Boston Globe allowed an "official" from a terrorist organization spew propaganda in their paper. And they were all right with that. Granted the piece was an opinion piece, but there's just something wrong with allowing one's enemy some sort of offical representation in this nation. It equates to me, at least, to allowing one of Goebbels' people write op-eds in America during World War II. You just don't do it. Apparently emboldened by the lack of serious outrage over that, the LA Times outdid its previous blunder by giving Imad Moustapha--the Syrian Ambassador--1000 words to parrot the other side's talking points. In a biting editorial, Mr. Moustapha pushed their side--that of Hezbollah--of the overall argument using their propaganda.
The point of this post is to show the readers a couple of things. Gone are the days of the media's "unbiased" reporting. Media moguls have come and gone, and had their fair share of responsibility regarding the news itself from William Randoplh Hearst to "Pinch" Sulzberger, some of the more powerful ones just can't resist tweaking things here and there. But for far too long, they got away with it, and no one really noticed. Along come bloggers, and a better informed public, and the media's world starts falling apart around them. The dinosaur media, as many bloggers have taken to calling them, knows that it's lifetime is short. The twilight of their era is slowly becoming nothing more than a twinkiling in their collective eye.
They could end that trend if they adapted to their "new surroundings," i.e. The Internet, and drop the old guard from these outlet's ranks. The old guard in the media, so firmly entrenched, and carrying a great deal of power within the offices, is killing journalism. Citizen journalists do the job better because unlike the media, our readers can discern the difference between "news" and "opinion." Most bloggers (all the ones we read) will separate them. We provide defenses and arguments for the story; in essence, questions left unasked. We provide proof for opinions we make, and give background where it's needed. The media doesn't. It runs with a story--an "expose," if you will--and if questioned on it, they get indignant.
The fourth rail has practically elevated itself to a psuedo-religion. Those in the grand pantheons will tow the line or "@$$e$ will sting." Many have been expelled from them, and among the notables is Bernie Goldberg. His opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal berating CBS News and Dan Rather cost him his friendship with Dan Rather. And after that piece, he wasn't shown the door yet, but he was certainly being handed his hat. And he is cursed and condemned on the Left. Sound familiar? It should because the same thing has happened to Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Two icons in the Democratic Party that were shunned because they spoke contrary to an integral argument of the party.
The NY Times, itself, is guilty of doing this. Judith Miller refused to testify to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury regarding her source. she was put in jail in an attemtp to compel her to reveal that source. She went to jail, and the Times went nuts with fawning pieces and profiles about this "courageous" journalist; one certainly destined for the higher levels of the pantheon. Then, she spoke with her source, and the source gave their OK. She testified, and that fateful turn of events brought her crashing back down to Earth. She was let go from the Times, and the same people who sang her praises ripped her to shreds.
The media's transparency is apparent when it comes to showing their ugly side. But that ugly side, as I think I've shown fairly well, is that they have no regard for this nation. They reveal secrets and they give our enemies a voice. These are not patriots at all. They're slick used car salesmen who would sell out just about anyone to make a buck, and put themselves on top for twenty-four hours. Too bad we're about three hours ahead of them most of the time.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home