Posted on 11/04/2006 2:27:06 PM PST by Mike Bates
Sprinkled throughout the mainstream media today are news reports about the Army Times and similar periodicals running an editorial Monday calling on the President to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Typical was the story carried on NBC5.com, Chicago's NBC affiliate, "Military Newspapers Call For Rumsfeld Removal." The piece begins, "The Military Times Media Group, which publishes the influential Army Times and other military periodicals, said it will be running an editorial Monday urging President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld."
But wait a minute. Are these publications actually "military newspapers?" The average reader might well interpret that term to mean that they're produced by active duty military personnel. They're not. Although the newspapers are targeted for service members, the Army Times and all the others are private, independent operations. They are subsidiaries of the Gannett Co., which also publishes USA Today.
Moreover, this isn't the first time these "military newspapers" have called for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired. They also did so two and one-half years ago.
It would have been better had the press provided adequate information about the Army Times and the others so that readers wouldn't be confused. They might think that there's widespread dissatisfaction with Mr. Rumsfeld among our courageous men and women serving in uniform. Or was that the point in ignoring the newspapers' private, independent status in the first place?
DUmocrats have nothing without lying enablers in the press.
Accomplices, much of the time.
aren't these free on military bases? More humiliation of our services, IMO.
Judging by their editorial stance, they should be. When I was in - admittedly a lifetime ago - I don't remember seeing one. Then again, I wasn't a lifer.
I have seen the Marine Corps Times used to...
1: clean a rifle
2: clean a mirror
3: start a barbecue
4: make spitballs
5: line a snake terrarium
6: absorb mud off the floor
7: make an Alice Pack look full and heavy
8: hold a cover in shape while the starch dries
I hear you can read it, too, but I've never actually seen that.
Perhaps Secretary Rumsfeld should simply declare these newspapers printed by the USA Today company, are no longer welcome on any American base in the world.
He really should do that. There's no reason for any pc nonsense in response to such a deliberate insult to Rumsfeld and also to our President the day before an election.
Shut them down.
Thanks for the info. It's more valuable than I realized.
Can you imagine the screams of "censorship?" (Not that it's not a good idea.)
You mean like the "Path to 9-11" censorship?
Oh, that was different. :)
No, not free. They are sold at the BX, PX, NEX.
$4.00 I think.
Most consider them equivalent to the National Enquirer.
Many lefty columnists and many factual errors in stories.
Much different. There you had a courageous former president under attack from the VRWC. Much different.
I see now:
When taxpayers honetly complain about the NEA being subsidised for "art" comprised of defacing a picture of the Virgin Mary, or semi-pornographic pictures from some guy named Maplethorpe, that's a censorship issue.
Of course.
When a taxpayer named Clinton complains about a privately owned media company creating a historically factual, fascinating and incredibly well done documentary, for which not one cent of taxpayer money was used - that's not censorship.
(slaps forehead)
Then a private company is allowed a "special" arrangement to distribute their private for-profit product on US military bases and abuses that to deliberately interfere in an election, that's a censorship issue.
Thanks it's much clearer now. It's like opening ones eyes for the first time.
I think I'll go hug a tree.
Checked with my niece--they aren't.
Be sure to take along some granola. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.