Posted on 07/12/2006 9:00:08 AM PDT by William Tell 2
The Mainstream Media (MSM) has been characterized, by former CBS journalist Bernard Goldberg, as living in a bubble.
A perfect illustration of this was the July 2 edition of the Chris Matthews show. The topic was the New York Times (NYT) revealing the government's secret program of monitoring international financial transactions.
Matthews' panel of NBC's Norah O'Donnell, Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and the Washington Post's Dana Milbank was asked to comment about the outrage by Republicans and the Bush administration to the NYT's recent article. These critics asserted that revealing this program has damaged efforts to investigate and capture terrorists and is possibly treasonous.
Matthews' liberal MSM panel said that the criticism of the NYT for making this secret program public was just political posturing by President Bush and Republicans. The most outrageous comment was by the alleged conservative on the panel, Kathleen Parker. She said that the New York Times was the "antichrist' among the 'right-wing bloggers' and that this issue was just being used by Republicans to energize the conservative base so that they will vote Republican in the fall.
In other words, the outrage by the president, Republicans, and average Americans is merely a conspiracy so Republicans can retain control of the Congress after this fall's elections. It is a better issue for Republicans than the 'flag-burning' amendment, one of Matthews' pundits said.
There is no question this program is an invaluable tool to deny financial resources to the terrorists. A July 2005 letter written by Al-Qaida's number two Ayman al-Zawahri, to the recently-killed Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, contained a request for funds. Zawahri complained his funding avenues have been cut.
Apparently it never occurred to Matthews and his cadre of MSM reporters, for one second, that the anger directed at the NYT was genuine. It never occurred to these callow, provincial, myrmidons, that the indignation could be because the American people do not want the NYT telling terrorists what we are doing to prevent terrorists from committing terrorist acts.
One would have to conclude that Matthews and his liberal cohorts did not think that the requests by government officials, including one from their poster boy John Murtha, not to publish the information about this program were merely political.
One can only conclude that Matthews, Parker, Page, O'Donnell, and Milbank think that the letter to the NYT by Army Sgt T.F. Boggs, who is on his second deployment in Iraq, condemning the newspaper for making public the secret program is political. They must think Boggs is a Republican Party operative. Will they find a way to call Boggs a 'chicken hawk,' because this is what liberals call people who support the Iraq war?
One can only guess what Matthews, O'Donnell, Page, Parker and Milbank think about Lt. Thomas Cotton's letter to the NYT in which he wrote:
"Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen ... Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program ... I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.) ... Unfortunately ... I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another ... I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful ... Not anymore..."
I guess these bien pensants will say Cotton is a paid political flack. Either that or they will probably try to discredit what he wrote by saying there is no link between what this program is doing and what is occurring in Iraq.
The liberal MSM has once again displayed their arrogance, their ignorance, and their hypocrisy. I once wrote that liberals are the self-righteous, led by the self-serving, for the benefit of the self-interested.
The Times' latest trading counterterrorism secrets for circulation
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the new novel A Sense of Duty available at http://www.geocities.com/ddc4010/orderinfonew.htm
Kathleen Parker should vacate the token "conservative" seat on those panels in favor of others better able to do it right.
That phrase is worth a second look.
Maybe the NYT will just publish the ames of all the children it is so willing to see slaughtered. It IS ALL about the children you know. What is the NYT layout for their "future"??? Bet it's scary
At the risk of being labeled a grammar nazi, "media" is a Latin plural; it requires a plural verb. It should read "... Media HAVE ..."
Carry on.
"At the risk of being labeled a grammar nazi, "media" is a Latin plural; it requires a plural verb."
No, not correct. In this usage it is a single entity so not plural.
Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary Terrorism and Financial Intelligence U.S. Department of the Treasury
"They value this program because it leads to results. The details remain classified, but the program has been instrumental in identifying and capturing terrorists and financiers and in rolling up a terrorist-supporting charity. The program played an important role in the investigation that eventually culminated in the capture of Hambali, Jemaah Islamiyya’s Operations Chief, who masterminded the 2002 Bali bombings. The program supplied a key piece of evidence that confirmed the identity of a major Iraqi terrorist facilitator and financier."
.....
"At the same time, I do very much regret the newspapers’ decision to publish what they knew. Secretary Snow and I, as well as others both inside and outside the government, made repeated, painstaking efforts to convince them otherwise. We urged that the story be held for one reason only: revealing it would undermine one of our most valuable tools for tracking terrorists’ money trails. We were authorized to set these arguments out for the relevant reporters and editors in an effort to convince them not to publish. In a series of sober and detailed meetings over several weeks, we carefully explained the program’s importance as well as its legal basis and controls. We strongly urged them not to reveal the source of our information and explained that disclosure would unavoidably compromise this vital program."
.....
"I have received the written output from this program as part of my daily intelligence briefing. For two years, I have been reviewing that output every morning. I cannot remember a day when that briefing did not include at least one terrorism lead from this program. Despite attempts at secrecy, terrorist facilitators have continued to use the international banking system to send money to one another, even after September 11th. This disclosure compromised one of our most valuable programs and will only make our efforts to track terrorist financing – and to prevent terrorist attacks – harder. Tracking terrorist money trails is difficult enough without having our sources and methods reported on the front page of newspapers."
It CAN'T be a "single entity," any more than "cars" can be a single entity. "Media" is the PLURAL of "medium." The nominative takes a plural verb.
If you were talking about "deer," as in a herd of deer, you wouldn't say "the deer was grazing peacefully."
The test is whether you use a singular or plural pronoun. Would you say the mainstream media/it, or the mainstream media/they?
If you want to refer to a single entity, it's "medium." Collectively, it's "media," and it's a plural.
Think of "the church", an entity. You would be correct were we not talking about a group with a singular identity, such as the media or the church.
Newspapers are a medium. TV, a medium. Together they are media and plural. However, we are not talking about those. We are talking about a group of live people, which we refer to as "the media".
I understand the subtlety you are implying, but I don't think a monolithic definition works for "media" the way it does for "The Church" (which should be a proper noun if it is going to be collectivized). There really IS no such monolith as "The Media" the way there is "The Church." Even in the latter's case, you're going to get asked "WHICH 'Church?'" A perfectly appropriate question. Just as it would be appropriate to ask "WHICH medium?"
If you are using "media" as a collective singular to make a rhetorical point, I'll concede with reservations. But if you're trying to convince me that it's gramatically correct, I'll beg to differ.
"But if you're trying to convince me that it's gramatically correct, I'll beg to differ."
No, it's really not correct because the usage of "media" in this manner is technically not correct. I do think that when we talk of "the media", we most often mean a large singular entity made up of smaller ones. The United States "is" involved in Iraq, for example. Proper noun, though, like you said.
Best converstion I've had on FR in a while. :)
At the risk of being anything you should know what you are talking about before you make an assertion.
You are acting more like a sciolistic liberal Democrat.
From the 1996 American Heritage Book of English Usage:
"Quite frequently, however, **media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: 'The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial.'** This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning."
You miss the point. What is this issue worth, really, in the way of determining actual value of a Republican's adherence to conservative ideals?
Sure, the Times sucks. What of it? If the election is on the basis of that, how will we know if candidates are conservative or RINO? Every political candidate fears and loathes the press for the damage it can do him.
Parker is not wrong to say that the New York Times was the "antichrist' among the 'right-wing bloggers,' nor is she wrong to say that this issue is just being used by Republicans to energize the conservative base so that they will vote Republican in the fall. She is dead on. If those assailing the treasonous Times really believed it, they would do their duty and prosecute them. If the President is so furious, and so wants action on the Times' treason, he has but to insist the AG enforce the law. If he refuses to prosecute the fifth columnists who are at our door, of what value is his fury? Without prosecution, that anger is shown every bit as false as past GOP promises to cut pork and unConstitutional spending.
These people have rocks for brains .. I'm still amazed they cannot see how this could hurt our being able to find out who's funding these terrorists .. but who they're sending their funds to.
Their ignorance is just mind-boggling.
But .. remember how "projection" works .. you whine about what Joe Blow is doing .. when all along it's really you who is doing the act. This statement by Kathleen Parker: "... this issue was just being used by Republicans to energize the conservative base so that they will vote Republican in the fall." Pretty much says it all - just change the word "Republican" and insert "Democrat", and change "conservative" to "left-wing" and you will get the TRUE MESSAGE.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. "Data" is the same thing. I cringe every time I use it as a singular, although I concede that modern usage does allow it. "Agenda" is a throughly lost cause, sadly enough. But I vow to draw the line on "media." It is no more proper to say "media is" than it is to say "gymnasiums is."
Bah! American Hertitage be damned.
If you say so
There is a place for good grammar and I respect those that know the English language so well they can always get everything correct.
But English is a living language, and in the end, the usage of words depend on those that use them. If the majority of the user agree a word can be used one way, even if in proper English it should not be, then it will be, and in time it will become the accepted use of the word.
This is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is just is.
History confirms it.
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.