The media today is guilty of the exact same propaganda and treason as was Lord Haw-Haw. No exaggeration.
Posted on 05/22/2004 9:31:50 PM PDT by FairOpinion
To the casual observer, the situation in Iraq is bleak, the Iraqi people don't really want democracy, and the only worthwhile story is the brutality and intimidation of Iraqi prisoners.
To the "casual observer" of the mainstream media, that is.
Although common sense and a semi-continuous pulse would be enough to notice the media's pack mentality in its Iraq coverage, the numbers paint a compelling - and disturbing - picture.
On any given day, Americans are treated to maybe a dozen stories highlighting the good deeds being done by coalition forces - building bridges, literally and figuratively, and generally improving daily life for ordinary Iraqis - and that's among all cable news outlets and hundreds of newspapers and magazines.
How many Americans know about the 5 million Iraqis who are now returning to school or the many non-Baathist professionals who are now finally starting to earn a decent salary?
We've been inundated with thousands of hand-wringing stories about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The media's obsession is to some degree understandable given the images, as a visual component inherently gives any story that much more life.
But all that can be said about the savage slaughter of American Nicholas Berg at the hands of terrorists - on video - and then some. The disparity is striking. The numbers speak for themselves.
From May 11 to May 19, there were more than 6,600 stories in the Lexis-Nexis news database with "Abu Ghraib" somewhere in the text. During the same span, there were just over 3,000 with both "Berg" and "Iraq."
To appreciate fully the significance of those statistics, though, the prisoner abuse story was already 2 weeks old at that point, and the news of Berg's beheading broke on May 11.
Why is this important? Because the "noise" - the collective impact of news from various sources - has been so focused on Abu Ghraib, the political backdrop is the savagery of Americans, not that of the terrorists we are fighting.
In some respects, the terrorists are winning more favorable coverage.
The terrorists who cut off the 26-year-old American's head claimed their brutality was revenge for the prisoner abuses. The news media bit. More than half of all stories on Berg mentioned Abu Ghraib, with many leading newspapers running the story with "revenge" or "vengeance" in the headline.
But since when can terrorists be taken at face value? Just because the terrorists claim a certain motive doesn't mean it is so. Before the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced, terrorists didn't exactly lack for motivation to kill Americans. With all the attention on "revenge" or "vengeance," another possible motive has been almost universally ignored.
Less than 10 percent of stories on Berg stated that he was Jewish, not an unimportant fact when radical Islamic terrorists say "Death to Israel" or "Death to the Jews" like most people breathe.
It's plausible that Berg's religion was not a factor in his death. But according to news reports, he had an Israeli stamp in his passport, and it's more than likely that his murderers knew he was Jewish. At the very least, it is an important point that cannot be ignored.
But ignoring is something at which the media specialize.
Consider that during the same May 11-May 19 period, there were more than 2,500 stories on Fallujah or Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi'ite cleric who is leading a spirited rebellion - with relatively few followers - in the south. The particular focus on al-Sadr, in fact, has enhanced the perception among many Americans that Shi'ites are radicals who oppose the very concept of democracy.
And why wouldn't they believe that when the media have produced precious few stories on the many peaceful demonstrations - led by Shi'ites - calling for al-Sadr to lay down his arms? Look at the numbers: of the 1,571 stories in Lexis-Nexis on al-Sadr, only 31 also contain "peaceful demonstration" (or its plural).
With the June 30 deadline to transfer power to the Iraqi people approaching, the Washington Post on Wednesday offered the following Page One headline: "U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure." Media groupthink dictates that the next buzzword to watch is "failure."
Kinda describes the media's selective outrage in covering the war in Iraq, doesn't it?
Joel Mowbray is the author of the book "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security."
Exactly. The media deliberately magnifies the bad news and not only ignores, but deliberately suppressed good news.
Why aren't there more balanced papers and magazines out there? Why have we ceded this to the left?
I wish GW would go on prime time TV and tell the sheeple whats really happening over there.
The media today is guilty of the exact same propaganda and treason as was Lord Haw-Haw. No exaggeration.
And then what? They'd either not report it or morph it into a completely different thing. How long will we put up with the media as it stands? That's a question that's almost rhetorical. The media is at a point where they see themselves as vastly superior to the man on the street and will continue to worsen until they, by one way or another, are turned around. What can we do? How to descend into the primordial ooze with the likes of m moore? God Lord, the thought alone is enough to spoil my supper....and breakfast.
President Bush will address the matter of Iraq in a speech Monday night.....stay tuned.
Excellent article.
The Cable Shows will carry the Pres. will the Networks??
A better question is how can the lamestream media be taken at face value. These are the people who admitted that they suppressed all sorts of news unfavorable to Saddam in exchange for "access." IOW, they misrepresented the news in Iraq, acting as Saddam's PR flaks.
I don't believe a word they say.
I agree. Just back from first day at antique show. What a shock. We had three confrontations with anti-Bush people. One claiming he was so tired of hearing about Iraq and then that Bush is a traitor because of the borders. At this point - I got irate and just nearly told him to leave my booth. Another customer overheard and backed me up.
Guess I will have to learn HOW TO TALK TO THESE PEOPLE - especially if I want to sell anything. Can't believe the lies that they believe - the media apparently is extremely effective. Such utter ignorance of what is really happening and what this country is really facing.
My husband was really on a roll with them though as he managed to "talk" with them without slappin' them around like I wanted. Nightline, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw were mentioned. One was a repeat "confrontationer" - he believes Bush went into Iraq as revenge for Daddy. He also worries about the deficit (probably does not even know what deficit means).
I was comforted by the fact none of this matters in Texas as Bush will carry the state. How in the world do the people in liberal country stand it?
Somebody needs to come up with a way to counter the media blitz of propaganda. What a shame to lose this superpower country merely by the use of propaganda
My understanding is that the administration has not asked for air time on the alphabets, so these networks will have to decide for themselves, I would guess.
bttt
Unfortunately, it is more than that if you mean the media. It is also decades of the liberal takeover of the education systems and the brainwashing of America's children. The liberal/socialist bias of educators in all levels of education has been breathtaking.
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.