Posted on 08/08/2005 9:36:03 AM PDT by goldstategop
Jihadi Journalist: The Real Peter Jennings
By Debbie Schlussel
While the rest of the world is blindly singing the praises of Peter Jennings, here's a reality check: Peter Jennings did more for the cause of Islamic terrorism than any media figure today. And that's nothing to celebrate, honor, or even memorialize.
Before there was Al Jazeerah, there was Peter Jennings.
From the beginning of Jennings career until his death, Jennings' biased coverage went beyond the pale, bending over backward in "understanding" the terrorists who hate us-- from seeing "their side" when he covered the seige and then murder of innocent Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics to honoring an Al-Qaeda operative with a prized "commentator" spot during Jennings coverage of the 9/11 attacks.
Throughout Jennings' coverage of the attacks, he frequently featured a man named Tariq Hamdi (whose commentary urged understanding for the radical Muslim world), identifying Hamdi only as "journalist" on the chyron.
But, in fact, Jennings' friend Hamdi was no journalist at all. As I've written, Hamdi was an alleged Bin Laden Associate and employed by Islamic Jihad's U.S. frontman, Sami Al-Arian.
According to prosecutors and documents in the 1998 trial of the Bin-Laden bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa (the 7th anniversary of which was yesterday), Hamdi provided Bin Laden a battery instrumental in those bombings. He's also an unindicted co-conspirator with Islamic Jihad frontman Sami Al-Arian, who employed him at his Islamic "charity" fronts at the University of South Florida. Hamdi was also an employee of a Saudi-funded charity raided by Customs agents for allegedly laundering billions to Qaeda through the Isle of Man.
This is the type of "journalist" and "commentator" Jennings frequently employed in his so-called newscast of which he was an all-controlling editor.
I always say, pillow talk is the most effective form of political speech. And it apparently had its effect on Jennings early on. When developing and heading up ABC's Beirut headquarters, Jennings dated (euphemism) Palestinian "beauty" Hanan Ashrawi. And it colored his vitriolic, anti-American, anti-Israel coverage ever since.
Then there were the sneers, the sneers of a Canadian high school drop-out for anything conservative, anything mainstream, anything pro-Western, pro-Israel, etc. Jennings' sneers and snide comments were always evident for those who did not meet his very left-of-center point of view. A great example was his sneering during the 2000 vote recount, and after, when Bush was declared President. Another was his sneering just after the 9/11 attacks when Bush delivered his speech to a joint session of Congress. Jennings' elitist sneers will NOT be missed.
While I never wish death upon anyone, it's only sad that Jennings despicable brand of advocacy journalism--parading as "news"--wasn't laid to rest along with him.
Unfortunately, that will not happen. Sadly, the female, more personable, non-toupeed version of Jennings--Elizabeth Vargas--is set to step into Jenning's shoes. She got off to a great Jennings-esque start in her first hosting duties at ABC's "20/20," last fall. She delivered a very sympathetic profile and interview of HAMAS operative and fundraiser Cat Stevens. Expect more of this to come.
It's sad when anyone dies of cancer. I won't dance on Jennings' grave, the way he danced on the graves of young, innocent athletes slaughtered at the Munich Olympics--the way he blasphemied their murders with his shallow, understand-the-Islamic-terrorists coverage. Unlike the murdered Munich athletes he dishonored, Jennings died in peace and without pain. He got to say good-bye to his loved ones. They did not.
But I will remember Peter Jennings for the less than honorable person he was--not the emperor with no clothing that is now being memorialized.
Jennings used to end his newscasts with, "And that's a look at our world." No, it wasn't a look at our world at all. It was Peter Jennings' slanted world, and every day he acted as if he was doing us a favor giving us his warped look at it.
No, Peter Jennings, that wasn't our world at all. Jennings' legacy is helping advance the cause of Islamic terrorists on broadcast television, parading it as news. He wrote his own epitaph with it. Unfortunately, it came with a lot more tombstones and epitaphs then just Jennings'--and most of those buried beneath are a whole lot more innocent.
They are the victims of Islamic terrorism--the brand Peter Jennings helped build into a network news product. That cancer,unfortunately, is still here. And it has metasticized
Thanks. I did read....but I think I've said all I'm going to say about the guy and just let him rest in peace.
Turn off your TV, get up off of your sofa and go here: [ http://www.mediaresearch.org/ ]. Do a site search for 'Peter Jennings' ending 3/01/2005. I retrieved over 1,500 entries. Read them. Understand them. Learn from them. Your sanctimonious moralizing is no excuse for basic ignorance and a poor substitute for honesty.
Post #142 applies to you as well.
There was a time when that phrase would have been used to mean 'Jew' without saying 'Jew'. Now it means 'Jew-hater'.
And, frankly, if you don't like that, it's just too damn bad, now isn't it?
See, we are entitled to our own opinions. You may tell me that I'm ignorant and I may think that you're obnoxious, rude and hypocritical, but we are still each entitled to our opinion, no matter how "ignorant" that opinion may be.
Wonderful country these United States.
If you want to hold on to your bitterness and anger toward a dead man, be my guest. I choose to move on.
Seems to me you're the one who is "sanctimoniously moralizing."
I agree that freedom is great - at least we agree on something.
Now, to straighten out your ignorance one more time...
I never bashed the man. I simply laid out facts and stated them with candor. Where did I slander him? Where did I attack his personal life? Nowhere. In fact, I stated that I wished his death on no person - friend or foe. I did, however, clearly state his role in treasonous corruption and I'd state it again if need be. The article above does a fine job so there is no need to do so again.
Quoting you: Frankly, if you don't like that, it's just too damn bad, now isn't it? See, we are entitled to our own opinions. You may tell me that I'm ignorant and I may think that you're obnoxious, rude and hypocritical, but we are still each entitled to our opinion, no matter how "ignorant" that opinion may be.
Seems your medicine is suited for your disorder better than mine. Please remember these words when you decide to jump in and enforce your views on others.
Yep, freedom is grand. That's why I clearly count enemies as those who want to limit freedoms...
By the way, ES, I notice at CP, we are now deemed "neocons who once "dissed" their country and mocked their military when it was a "hip" thing to do." A slanderous lie but perhaps more revealing of the true nature "over there."
Neocon of course is a buzzword for Jew. THAT didn't take long to emerge.
No moralizing - just the facts. Learn the difference.
His bias has been documented for years, that's not an issue for the media. The timing was lousy, though OK perhaps for a blog entry. You're not going to break through the saint-making. There's time for that later, though I doubt most people will care.
"Learn the difference"
***
I do know the difference...and you were doing as I said.
It's a puzzlement to me when a Marxist enabler such as PJ dies, he suddenly becomes canonized. His legacy, such as it is, will likely not be accurately portrayed by historians because they come from the same school of thought. "America is not really the shining city on the hill" was his message. Millions here and around the world bought into it. IMO, the damage he did to America, and just as importantly, what he contributed to the world's view of America, can't be understated. Nor should it be. Even at his death.
But he had style.....
FGS
As for your reference to my ignorance... I find it interesting that you resort to insults instead of resorting to logic. That indicates that you have a real problem articulating your views. And that implies ignorance.
Anyway, I'm tired of this nonsense. You seem intent on proving just how brilliant you are and I couldn't care less whether you're a genius or a twit. So, I have no intention of engaging in this nonsense any further.
For some reason you took issue with me making the point that I see no purpose in discussing Jennings' views and calling them treasonous on the day of his death. He had a family who are mourning his death. I see no point in adding to their pain.
We can debate our disagreements with Peter Jennings' positions later. But the man just passed away. I took the same position when Pres Reagan, bless his heart, passed away.
So...it's been just a thrill trading barbs with you, but I think I better move on to something a little more important....like trimming my nose hairs.
Seems to me that you've been unable to discern the facts all along leaving me hardly suprised that you cannot follow them. Mistaking emotion for a recitation of facts is additional error on your part.
Alger Hiss was not, of course, a KGB agent. He was a GRU agent. But there wasn't one word to this effect from PJ.
That's all anyone ever needed to know about Peter Jennings.
Seems to me that you've been unable to discern the facts all along leaving me hardly suprised that you cannot follow them. Mistaking emotion for a recitation of facts is additional error on your part.
***
You obviously have no clue as to what I am about and what I understand. I just think you like to throw out ridiculous nonsense just to see if you will get a response. Well, you got one this time, but that's it. This is my last visit to this thread. Ply your superiority complex on someone else.
S: “I have never tried to enforce my views on anyone.”
W: Please recall your own words: “That's just cold-blooded. The man died and untimely and suffering death. The least we could do is show a little class and offer prayers of comfort to his family and a prayer for the soul of a man who defied the odds after dropping out of high school to become one of America's best known TV news anchors. No matter what you think of his politics, I see no purpose in sniping at someone that has just passed away. Frankly, it says more about the person making the comment than it does about the person that passed away.” Sounds to me like you are making a darn good try to enforce your views on me and many other posters.
S: “Taking issue with someone certainly is not an attempt to "enforce" my views.”
W: It is when you condemn and reprove by saying “That's just cold-blooded.” and then recommend actions like “The least we could do is show a little class and offer prayers of comfort to his family and a prayer for the soul of a man who defied the odds after dropping out of high school to become one of America's best known TV news anchors.” Again, I think you really need to pay more attention to what you say and spend less time moralizing to others.
S: “As for your reference to my ignorance... I find it interesting that you resort to insults instead of resorting to logic.”
W: Looking over the lapse in your memory over your own statements and sanctimony that drips from your posts, I really don’t consider anything I’ve posted to you to be anything close to the arrows from pious pulpit you lecture from, friend.
S: “That indicates that you have a real problem articulating your views. And that implies ignorance. “
W: I have zero problems articulating my views. The problem lies in reading and understanding them in context. To my thinking, that is the gist of our exchange.
S: “Anyway, I'm tired of this nonsense. You seem intent on proving just how brilliant you are and I couldn't care less whether you're a genius or a twit. So, I have no intention of engaging in this nonsense any further.”
W: Of course. There is always time to slap down those you consider morally deficient, but never a moment to engage in solid discourse or defend your words.
S: “For some reason you took issue with me making the point that I see no purpose in discussing Jennings' views and calling them treasonous on the day of his death. He had a family who are mourning his death. I see no point in adding to their pain.”
W: For some reason you took issue with me making the point that it is important to place the man in proper context as a treasonous tool of the left. Nothing said on this forum or thread will add one iota to his eternal status or his survivor’s pain. Don’t forget, you took it upon yourself to correct me – not the other way around.
S: “We can debate our disagreements with Peter Jennings' positions later. But the man just passed away.”
W: I doubt we’d be able to discuss Jennings later because you clearly do not understand the gravity of the man’s legacy now or the misguided emotion of eulogizing a treasonous puppet.
S: “So...it's been just a thrill trading barbs with you, but I think I better move on to something a little more important....like trimming my nose hairs.”
W: I think your limited range of vision will be an excellent aid in trimming your nose hairs.
Just an oversight I'm sure ;^)
Or, he may have missed the deadline......or somethin'.
But he had style.
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.