Posted on 03/05/2004 12:33:50 PM PST by Naspino
When will conservatives stop causing "furors" to erupt? First, it was Mel Gibson tossing about his anti-semitic hate-filled speech in the "Passion of the Christ". Now, George Bush, is sending hundreds of million of Americans reeling with insensitive images of the World Trade Center "accident". Well, I suppose those sentences would make sense to me if I were a liberal; instead, they draw for me a conclusion about how the press perceives all things conservative, that they must cause a "furor".
Have you noticed, in the past two months, how many times the press has used the word "furor" to describe the response to a conservative or Christian decision? Like most words adopted by the liberal press it has lost its meaning. The press should rewrite every single one of these stories in order to describe whom it is that is actually furious and how many "furious" people it takes to screw in a light bulb. We are all familiar with the disappointments of our good friends "some" and "many" and so the press has retired them in favor of the "furor" which like oxygen permeates all of society whenever Mel Gibson or George Bush breathes.
When the New York Times staff reacts to a George W. Bush ad, try as they might, it does not make a "furor". If you would like to witness a real "furor" examine the public reaction to the fabricated press accounts of the "Passion of the Christ", which by the end of its second weekend will be ranked number forty-one on the all-time highest grossing film list and will undoubtedly surpass "Titanic" before its run is over. I guess Jesus did not take kindly to James Cameron proclaiming to be on top the world.
You may think I am delusional, yet you need only examine the vomit chucked over the papers of the mainstream press in the last twenty-four hours. The New York Times declares, "Bush Campaigns Amid a Furor Over Ads" while the New York Daily News rephrases it as, ""Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad". An associated press or Reuters, there really is no difference, has handed over its version of accounts to countless organizations from the Buffalo News and Orlando Sentinel to the Contra Costa Times in California. It states, "...but the initial furor sparked in some quarters by the ads made clear that Bush..." Even the Washington Post writes, "the commotion over the use of 9/11 imagery in President Bush's campaign ads is just the prologue to a bigger furor." Of course, "...the president's aides had [not] expected this much furor." aptly notes the Los Angeles Times. Neither did Mel Gibson.
As I look at the news search I have run, I could fill this article with reams of press accounts that mention the all-encompassing "furor". The only account that has any redeeming feature to it is the one from GOPUSA.COM that at least sources where the furor resides when it says, "The Associated Press reported that the furor..." Even our own party is playing the enemy’s game on the enemy’s turf.
I would not normally care about the use of the word "furor"; after all, it is a perfectly valid word. However, I did become a bit sensitive to its use when the press demonized Mel Gibson and the film, "The Passion of the Christ". It seemed rather suspect that the word was printed in hundreds of articles, mostly in headlines, that all dealt with the supposed anti-semitism of the film. Does it not remind you of a certain anti-semitic "Fuhrer"? Does it not remind you of what MoveOn.Org, Mikhail Moore and the rest of the liberals have been telling us for so long?
I think the liberal movie critics were the creative ones, putting "furor" in a context that suited their agenda. Then the less creative press corp simply cheated off their paper. Now, whenever a conservative takes a leak there will be a "furor" over how it was accomplished -- and "some" and "many" will have to sit idly by and watch.
So let us do some research on news.google.com, shall we? Search for the word "furor" with "mel", "bush", and then "kerry". The "Passion of the Christ" and Mel Gibson caused an impressive 196 furors. Chump-change, though, compared to the uprising against the President and his ad compaign, an astonishing 596 furors. So how does John Kerry score with the ethos? He gets a respectable mention in 285 furors. Who knew the press could be fair. Well, to be thorough I suppose we could subtract out the recent "furor" over Bush's ad, afterall Kerry gets put in to favorable light in those, and the furor over the "economy", "job growth", "job relocation", "gay rights", "and entitlement benefits". Need I even inform you of the result?
Surely there must be someone that dislikes John Kerry. I am furious with his statements about putting our military under direct command of the United Nations. I am furious that the guy of the people marries a woman worth $300,000,000 and then seeks an annulment in order to shack up with a woman worth $700,000,000. Do you know any men of the people with a record like that? Please -- someone help me find the "furor" over John the "F’ing" "Furor" Kerry.
I caught part of Rush today. If you listened you heard clips of three women on three different networks repeat verbatim the same statements. Its obvious, yes, that the DNC found them and trained them. What should also be obvious to people is that THREE networks JUST SO HAPPENED to find three women all coached by the DNC? Right.
A little off topic -- but I really want to produce a film that will contrast the media's representation of 5.6% unemployment under Clinton to what they say about it under Bush. We are letting these liberal shills define how the game is going to be played and what words and numbers mean. We need to expose that.
Very interesting but not suprising. They are going all out in this election and the press is not going to be very upfront about their agenda this time either. Bush must lose at all costs according to them, nothing is beyond the pale and everything is on the table.
They are like little kids..
f-u-r-o-r . . . Mikey learn new word!
The central press is a dying breed. There are too many outlets now for them to make a good living and be assured of any job security. The more people that weblog and visit sites like FR the better for that reason. The only one's left will be the guys in the field which are usually benign compared to the anchors and editorialists.
The Kerry annulment was not a cause and effect thingy w/ Ms. Ketchup.
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.