Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America’s media traitors
New Australian ^ | Tuesday 18 September 2001 | by James Henry

Posted on 09/17/2001 10:59:02 AM PDT by Jean S

New York
TNA News with Commentary
Tuesday 18 September 2001

Overall, the American media’s coverage of the recent terrorist atrocities has reflected well on them. However, and there’s always a ‘however’ when dealing with some reporters and media anchors, there were appalling exceptions. Those who used the atrocities to vent their hatred of Bush exposed themselves as callous political bigots. There’s a huge difference between criticizing, even in error, the president and trying to subvert him. The latter, in my opinion, amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy — i.e., treason.

Let readers judge for themselves — except for those who follow the Chomsky line that America is a terrorist state and so had it coming. When interviewing Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf about the bombings Tom Brokaw couldn’t help but insinuate that Bush was responsible for the atrocities because he was “negligent” regarding “the Mideast peace process.” So all that Bush had to do to avert an act of war against the United States was to make Israel commit national suicide, because that seems to be the only thing that will satisfy so-called Palestinians and their Western-hating supporters.

Just to show how patriotic it really is, the New York Times had the loathsome Maureen McDowd insinuating that Bush was a coward because she and her leftwing media buddies didn’t know where he was. (A Newsday editorial pushed the same line). She then described how “chilling” it was “to see how unprepared those in charge” seemed to be. Maybe that’s because the leftwing papers like the New York Times, the rag that pays her, and its Democratic allies have spent years waging war against America’s intelligence agencies. This is the very point that Tom Clancy made to Judy Woodruff about our defenses when she interviewed him. The fatuous Woodruff responded with the pompous assertion that the media didn’t take sides on intelligence agencies. And this is the same bigoted idiot who erupted with “But that’s spying” when Clancy said America would have to “infiltrate” its enemies organizations. Perhaps this media moron would prefer more atrocities.

Of course Dowd is not the only one at the Times who abandoned patriotism — if she ever had any — in favor of partisanship. R.W. Apple Jr’s story was titled: Bush Presidency Seems to Gain Legitimacy was written in an attempt to belittle Bush and impugn “his capacity for the job”. Evidently the Times and most of its staff are still refusing to accept Bush as president. Okay, if that’s how that scurvy bunch want to behave, it’s their choice. But for Junior to use the terrorist raids on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to cast aspersions on the President Bush’s legitimacy is an outrage. (The Times is not alone in attacking the president’s legitimacy. During the National Prayer Service Peter Jennings called Clinton “President Clinton”).

Despite the gravity of the situation and the suffering of the victims, the New York Times even used the atrocity to attack Bush’s national missile defense proposals, just as CNN did. Ignoring this paper’s sickening lack of sensitivity (one of its favorite words) what does it think these fanatics would do if they got their hands on a nuclear missile? But the likes of the Times thinks it incredible that anyone could rationally disagree them.

Robert Wright did likewise in Bill Gates’ magazine online Slate, arguing that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon proved the futility of missile defense. It’s as if this little left-winger (I refuse to simply call his ilk liberals — because they are not real liberals at all) couldn’t wait to use the dead and the dying to attack proposals for an advanced national defense system. Being a good internationalist Wright argues against “unilateral American action”. This is leftwing code for: “The US is a bully-boy who cannot be trusted to act alone, even in self-defense.” Perhaps Gates should fire him. The Bush-hating Albert R. Hunt of The Wall Street Journal also shares Wright’s views, recalling how Clinton’s missile raid on bin Laden failed. That it was not meant to succeed is not a thought that struck Hunt.

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman felt the need to attack Bush for his lack of eloquence (even mass murder cannot deter this lot from political nitpicking) asserting “he did not look larger than life”. “Larger than life”! Now what’s that supposed to mean? Bush looked the way he is supposed to look — presidential. The Los Angeles ‘Socialist’ Times’ Howard Rosenberg played the same theme when he argued that Bush “lacked size in front of the camera when he should have been commanding,” going so far as to vindictively describe Bush as looking “like a little boy”. And what would have given, in Rosenberg’s opinion, Bush a “commanding” presence? Believe it or not, the persona of a “national anchorman.” The journalistic arrogance of these leftwing media monkeys is truly unbelievable at times.

Peter Jennings ABC News also tried to advance the McDowd line that Bush went into hiding after the bombing. Running abreast of the weaselly Jennings was Mary McGrory from the Washington Post who pompously declared that “He [President Bush] allowed himself to be hauled about the country like a fugitive to bunkers at Air Force bases in Louisiana and Nebraska”. Maliciously adding: “He might have reflected that if Washington wasn’t safe for him, it wasn’t safe for the rest of us.”

That it was known at the time that Bush had rejected security advice not to return to Washington did not faze McGrory one little bit, once again demonstrating the left’s contempt for the truth. Not far behind this pack was the reptilian Ellis Henican, a Clinton worshipper and a reporter with the leftwing Long Island Newsday who stated: “Mostly, George W. Bush has been keeping his head down, staying out of harm’s way. He certainly hasn’t shown his face around here.”

It’s now known that security believed that Air Force One and the White House were terrorist targets. And that’s why Bush was delayed. Even this information was questioned. In an exchange with Peter Jennings Claire Shipman asserted that some people on the Hill think that Bush was really afraid to return to the White House. Jennings, of course, supported her with the phony observation that “we’re all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington.” I say phony because Jennings never exhibited any skepticism when Clinton was president. Even though the above information has been confirmed, the likes of Jennings and Shipman have not offered their President an apology. (Incidentally, this is the same sensitive Jennings who interrupted the Wednesday morning prayers that were being offered by the House and Senate chaplains).

Now note the knee-jerk reaction of these media personalities, their willingness to immediately assume the worst of Bush, not even bothering to checkout their prejudiced assumptions. Can anyone honestly tell me these hacks are not bigoted? And there are, unfortunately, hundreds of others. The likes of Andrea Mitchell NBC’s Campbell Brown, Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Brian Williams are just the tip of a very big iceberg that our editor, Gerry Jackson, calls America’s fifth column.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lamestreammedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2001 10:59:02 AM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Great minds lurk alike...........:-)
2 posted on 09/17/2001 11:01:39 AM PDT by kahoutek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Give 'em hell, Aussies!
3 posted on 09/17/2001 11:04:38 AM PDT by BlueLancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
GREAT article Jean. Thanks for posting it.
4 posted on 09/17/2001 11:08:03 AM PDT by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry. This is a duplicate post. Go here for the original post.
5 posted on 09/17/2001 11:10:16 AM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry. This is a duplicate post. Go here for the original post.
6 posted on 09/17/2001 11:10:25 AM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Caught a few seconds of CNN this weekend while changing channels. A talk show of some kind. Male guest was saying that the attack on the US is the US' fault because of its foreign policy. CNN reporter just nodded. No bias there.

The sooner CNN is bankrupt, the better.

7 posted on 09/17/2001 11:28:49 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Now note the knee-jerk reaction of these media personalities, their willingness to immediately assume the worst of Bush, not even bothering to checkout their prejudiced assumptions.

I have noted that, time and again, on the part of media pundits and rank and file voters. For example, Rush and Russert and O'Reilly and Hannity et al. were always willing to immediately assume the worst of Clinton, without even bothering to check the facts to see if their wild and treasonous assertations were true.

I can't even name the number of "scandals" that the press and conservatives in general were able to stain Clinton with. In every case but one, all those charges turned out to be lies, but that didn't stop his enemies form embracing and endlessly repeating those lies on television, on the radio, in newspapers and magazines, and in every other form of media.

In every case, over and over again, regardless of the ridiculousness of the accusations, his enemies invariably assumed the worst about Clinton. They even suggested, when he was sending cruise missles after Bin Laden, that he was "wagging the dog."

So I know what you mean when you complain about pundits and people treating the president without respect or honor. Unfortunately, that's the way it is nowadays. Conservatives changed the rules about how Americans talk about their president in order to lambaste Clinton mercilessly. Now Bush has to live under the new rules. No, he won't like these new rules -- but then neither did Clinton, and he put up with being called every name in the book for over eight years.

Criticism has always come with the job. And nowadays, criticism comes with calumnies and insults, because that's the way conservatives wanted it.

8 posted on 09/17/2001 11:49:45 AM PDT by Hidy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
Which of the scandals that Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity believed and told about Clinton weren't true?
9 posted on 09/17/2001 11:54:44 AM PDT by HalfIrish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
One sure thing, we KNOW for sure, Our President Bush isn't getting a BJ from some intern in the Oval Office. WE know his wife is there for him and her family more than "in name only".. We know our President GW Bush, hasn't wagged his finger and lied to not only the American people, but the world.

The above is just for starter's. I promise you, hidy, you have just opened up a Pandora's box for this forum...DUCK for cover!

sw

10 posted on 09/17/2001 11:58:31 AM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
Hildy, Hildy, Hildy...

By now, you should realize...

Oh never mind...someone pass Hildy another cup of kool-aid. After that verbal vomit, she/he's probably a little dehydrated.

11 posted on 09/17/2001 11:58:49 AM PDT by carton253
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HalfIrish
Nevermind getting an answer from her. She's probably, no doubt, digging out her old tie-dyed Peace Symbol t-shirt to organize an anti-war protest somewhere in California..

sw

12 posted on 09/17/2001 12:04:44 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HalfIrish
Actually, the person who will not be name for a shill, gave the answer albeit in a roundabout way:

'"I can't even name the number of "scandals"...'


An apologist for komrade krintoon for sure.

13 posted on 09/17/2001 12:07:14 PM PDT by NoClones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
Bush's legacy- ending terrorism.
Clinton's legacy- getting a blowjob in the Oval office.
Need we say more?
14 posted on 09/17/2001 12:11:38 PM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
"They even suggested, when he was sending cruise missles after Bin Laden, that he was "wagging the dog."

Ummm, lets see, WJC sent a single cruise missile into an apirin factory, on the eve of Monica Lewinsky testimony, and he was going after bin Ladin?..........rrrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt

"Unfortunately, that's the way it is nowadays. Conservatives changed the rules about how Americans talk about their president in order to lambaste Clinton mercilessly."

Oh yeah, I remember the press treating Reagan and Bush Sr. with such respect. The only problem liberals have had with the "rules" of reporting on Clinton, is that they were created prior to him, and when they are applied, it was just such a terrible and hateful thing, of which they demanded suspension of course, until another conservative sat in the oval office.

15 posted on 09/17/2001 12:15:11 PM PDT by DKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hidy et al
Everyone: I had a recent attempt at an exchange with Hidy on another thread. Until I checked, I had no idea he had been here since 1998. Apparently, he had nothing of value to say, which is why I don't ever remember having a discussion with him.

You can see that the essence of Clinton is dripping from his chin. Nothing you can ever say to him and no proof that can ever be offered will make him give up his devotion to Scumbag. He drank the Kool-Aide long ago.

He talked about reading his Bible to decide that Scumbag did not rape Juanita Broaddrick.

One of the purposes of this forum is to inform each other and plan action that can be helpful to our conservative cause.

I learned my lesson. Attempting to have a discussion with someone still on his kneepads will accomplish nothing. It will waste your time. Much of South Central Los Angeles will never believe that O.J. Simpson murdered two people. The same with Scumbag. Hidy is a partisan hack and all he wants to do is mentally masturbate with anyone here who will give him the opportunity.

He is of no value on this forum. He simply takes up space. I do not have enough respect for him to engage in further discourse.

16 posted on 09/17/2001 12:25:16 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
You've just proven that you're scum. But you know what? You're clinton's kind of scum, the kind that loves to get on their knees and take what he loves to spew all over scum like you.
17 posted on 09/17/2001 12:33:50 PM PDT by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Hey Doug .. You are on top of this thing again ! I can not imagine another person with such a gaping hole in there core that they enjoy being addressed in this manner . Unbelievable , but there it is right before my very eyes . It is true , that is this persons stock and trade . good to see you again doug !
18 posted on 09/17/2001 12:42:05 PM PDT by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
VERY disappointed in Brian WIlliams. I read on FR that he is a Pubbie. Must be a RINO...
19 posted on 09/17/2001 12:44:58 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
You fit right in with the rest of the media traitors. Have you no decency at all? Clinton was and is criminal traitor scum, yet you use the murders of thousands of Americans (which clinton could have prevented by having bin laden killed) as an opportunity to defend him. Shame on you.
20 posted on 09/17/2001 12:54:44 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson