For me the most outrageous truth about the media came with the abduction and release of the FOX journalists.
What did you hear when they were captured? Their families appealed to the barbarian gangs that they had captured the wrong people, ie the media.
You heard how they were in Gaza to "tell the Palestinian" story, that they sympathized with the "Palestinians" etc. The appeal was that the barbarians had captured their allies.
Isn't the media supposed to be neutral? I know stupid question. But how often, not withstanding doctored photos, is it so obvious- by their own admission- that the media is a tool of the "Palestinians" and other Islamists?
If I had been kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to recite from the Koran, when released I would have had a few choice words for both Islam and its followers.
What did these "journalists" do? Said nice things about Islam, absolved almost all "Palestinians" from what had happened to them, and posed smilingly with a Hamas leader.
They now get to go home. What about their colleagues who stay to "report". Think you'll get a single honest report out of Gaza from those there both "to tell the "Palestinians" story" and to survive in the Islamic jungle.
Funny how it never works the other way. If Israel or the US accidentally harms journalists, nowhere in their cry do you hear "why oh why" we were just there to tell the Israeli or the American side. Instead there are accusations, a permanent lack of forgiveness and hell to pay.
What did you hear when they were captured? Their families appealed to the barbarian gangs that they had captured the wrong people, ie the media.
You heard how they were in Gaza to "tell the Palestinian" story, that they sympathized with the "Palestinians" etc. The appeal was that the barbarians had captured their allies.
What's wrong with that? (</sarcasm>)Obviously that is what they mean by "Fair, balanced, and unafraid." Unafraid of people who aren't dangerous to them, that is . . .