On May 24, 2005, I entered the following search words or "phrases" into Google's Advanced Search and received the following results:Iraq beheadings ~ 147,000 results
Koran toilet ~ 269,000 results and Quran toilet 163,000 for a total of 432,000 results
So, a rumor about a Koran ending up in a toilet is 294% more newsworthy than the countless, documented beheadings of civilian men and women by Muslim savages. There is more focus on an unsubstantiated rumor from a terrorist who was trained to spread propaganda than the well established fact that human beings are having their heads cut off.
I was taken aback by these Google results, so I tried another Google search:
Attack "World Trade Center" ~ 1,310,000 results
"Abu Ghraib" ~ 3,620,000 results
Here, it seems that putting panties on the heads of Iraqi insurgents and terrorists is 276% more newsworthy than the attack on the World Trade Center.
It is totally insane that there were more words written on an event that can only be described as " the humiliation of combatants" than the mass murder of 3,000 civilians.
This is crazy.
Now I don't know how many or the results returned by Google were authored by American journalists and published by the American media, but my Google only returns English results. So I concluded that these stories or opinions were produced by Americans, British, Australian, Canadian and a few South Asian journalists and others writing for the English speaking market. What we know as mainstream media.
But there is no bias in the media. In the United States, where I assume the majority of these stories are written and published, journalists are just exercising their Constitutional rights of free expression.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes speech and press freedoms with the following language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The words, "... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... ," describe the rights affecting the spoken and written word under the US Constitution. Every right is balanced by a responsibility and my concern has to do with the responsibilities that accompany these rights.
Are these rights absolute? Does the media have the right to print and say anything? How do the notions of fraud and false utterances apply to the press? Can members of the press be charged with treason?
Freedom of speech in America has never been absolute. There have been many laws limiting restricting scandalous, malicious, inflammatory or false utterances from The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798; the 1919 decisions in Schenck v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S. established the Clear and Present Danger Test (Yelling "fire' in a crowded theater); in the 1920s, two cases, Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Whitney v. California (1927) established an even more conservative test; by 1951 in Dennis v. U.S., the Court was articulating a revised version of the clear and present danger test - the Clear and Probable Danger test and in the 1968 case of U.S. v. O'Brien, the issue was symbolic speech since antiwar protesters were not so much saying things as doing things, like burning the flag, burning draft cards, holding sit-ins, love-ins, and the like.
Doesn't the media have a duty to publish truth and fact? Don't they have a duty to present both sides of a story? Shouldn't they obtain its information through legally acceptable means and from credible sources? And finally, where is the responsibility to weigh press freedoms against national security?
Given the history of "free speech," are some members of the liberal press actively engaged in activities that exceed the limits of free speech and meet the legal standards of treason?
Treason, as defined in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
The concept of 'adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.' (See United States v Haupt, D.C.III., 47 F.Supp. 836,839.)
We have all seen the publication and dissemination of stories, "... which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies."
Didn't the Abu Ghraib story weaken or tend to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies? I think it did. That meets the test.
Didn't the Koran in the toilet rumor weaken or tend to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies? I think it did. That meets the test.
Haven't some members of the press distributed countless unsubstantiated rumors and stories that weaken or tend to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies?
The right to free expression, so important to a free press, is a broad one, but what is the responsibility or responsibilities of the media in their exercise of this cherished tradition? Is the hatred or mistrust of an administration or the military sufficient cause to subvert honest free expression with political agendas that will damage the country as a whole?
