Posted on 03/27/2003 2:07:24 PM PST by Remedy
The president of a Texas-based ministry is encouraging concerned Christians and other Americans to let ABC know they’re tired of anchorman Peter Jennings and his anti-American leanings.
As he has anchored coverage of the war to liberate Iraq, ABC anchorman Peter Jennings has made his opinions known. In mid-February, when the Bush Administration's attempt to push a resolution through the U.N. Security Council was stymied by France, the anchor for World News Tonight offered the following observations:
"I think a lot of people got the impression this week that maybe the Bush Administration doesn't mind if the Western alliance as we've known it in the post-war period breaks up" -- and "the administration is prepared to jeopardize its relations with several of its oldest and best friends in order to get its way about Iraq."
As one media watchdog group says, "Jennings would not say that several of America's 'oldest and best friends' were jeopardizing relations with us to get their way about Iraq."
In another example, commenting on the reception allied troops were receiving in Iraq, Jennings stated: "Yesterday we saw images of a jubilant reception in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan where ... people tore down a picture of Saddam Hussein and jumped in the streets -- at least for the cameras."
And while talking to Democratic Senator Joe Biden about the anti-war protests, Jennings said: "A large number of people in the country are opposed to this .. but look to members of the Democratic Party, particularly, to be sort of their port in a storm, their place to manifest their dissatisfaction." To which Biden responded: "They've got the wrong port.... The decision's been made."
In addition, Jennings has opined that President Bush is fighting the war "alone," and the anchor has given substantial air time to anti-war protestors.
Dr. Bruce Engleman is president of We the People Ministries. He says Americans do not need Jennings on television. Jennings, he says, needs to go home.
"It is time again to send this socialistic Canadian back to our friends in the north, let him go back to being a host of 'Canadian Bandstand' -- and turn this job over to a real journalist," Engleman says. "It is not his job to be a commentator and to tear up our president during a time of war."
Engleman says Jennings should not mix in his opinion with his reporting. "With Peter Jennings running the show and as the main anchor of the televised coverage of the war, we do not need his constant barrage against President Bush -- an attack, really, which is quite liberal," he says.
"Obviously, Mr. Jennings is anti-American, he's anti-Bush, he's anti-Republican, he's anti-Christian, he's anti-war, he's anti-coalition of the willing -- and this is not the place for a journalist to exercise his personal, political beliefs."
Engleman knows ABC will not take Jennings off the air, but he encourages people to contact ABC and voice their complaints over the anchorman’s personal comments. More importantly, Engleman encourages Christians to pray for the salvation of Peter Jennings.
Focus on the Minority
The Media Research Center also says ABC was clearly the most biased in its coverage leading up to the war. And now, MRC says, Peter Jennings and his cohorts are offering the most biased coverage of the war itself. Spokesman Tim Graham says ABC continues to treat anti-war protestors with far greater significance than they deserve.
"They are being portrayed an enormous, massive, huge protest that President Bush has to ... knuckle under and ... give in [to]. This is like paying attention to a focus group," Graham says. "But that's what the protests are: a small group of people that do not represent the rest of the United States of America."
Graham adds that Jennings continues to tout the anti-war protestors, even though polls show the American people overwhelming support the war effort. "If you can attract tens of thousands of people to march in Washington, it makes for a good picture," he says. "The question is, does it mean anything in regard to the rest of America's democracy?
"If we have polls now, that are showing that 70% of the American people favor [the] war in Iraq despite the U.N., then what do 50,000 people represent?" Graham asks -- then answers his own question. "They represent a tiny fringe of a minority and yet, they are being portrayed as enormous massive, huge protests."
Graham says despite the irrelevance of the protestors, Jennings recently spent eight minutes interviewing two of the anti-war leaders, tossing them what he describes as "softball questions."
Me too. At least ole Dan is taking this war seriously and so far, not using it to further his socialist ideas. The minute the first Saddam "tape" was aired after the initial air strike, I turned on Rather immediately to see his reaction. He looked extremely dubious about the identity of the fellow in the Saddam suit reading notes and said, "...if it is, indeed, Saddam." If Rather didn't think so, how can the rest of us?
I saw Rather interviewed on Charlie Rose before the war started but after the Saddam interview, and it seemed that he'd received so much criticsm for interviewing Saddamit that he'd had a sort of epiphanie about where his loyalties actually lie. Let's hope he doesn't revert to kneepad stance on Saddam, and Fidel, for that matter.
I caught that, at the briefing. Poor George.
By the way, the idiot from New York Magazine was Michael Wolff - the magazine's MEDIA EDITOR.
Some body have a bake sale for this poor farmer.
He says specifically, "ABC has sent it's senior correspondent home". dear me, and all along, I thought it was little Georgie being a spoiled brat. I shudda known it was the very biased ABC making a decision totally designed to discredit the military's honesty.
"NY Magazine: Top Black General Worthless
March 27, 2003
Brigadier General Vincent Brooks faces some outrageous and stupid questions at his daily Central Command briefings. Some of them deserve to be answered dead on, but because of political correctness and diplomacy and all that, CENTCOM can't always do that. I can, which is why I sometimes answer these questions in a mock briefing. On Thursday, I focused on a question by New York magazine's Michael Wolff.
Wolff said: "I mean no disrespect by this question, but I want to ask about the value proposition of these briefings. We're no longer being briefed by senior-most officers." The press pool applauded the question, which drew a rapier-quick response from Brooks who said, "I've gotten applause already. That's wonderful. I appreciate that."
Can you believe the audacity of complaining that Brigadier General Brooks isn't good enough for the press? If this had been a reporter from a conservative news source, the press would point out the fact that Brooks just happens to be the only African-American general on the scene. Charges of racism would be made, because this question's underlying meaning is clearly that Brooks can't possibly know anything.
This war is not about Michael Wolff's stupid stories in New York magazine. It's about saving lives, including his. This is not a criticism of General Schwarzkopf, but the leader of this Gulf War, General Tommy Franks, isn't going to be out there talking to these people every day. He's busy picking out targets and protecting our soldiers. By the way, Donald Rumsfeld nominated Brooks for appointment to the rank of brigadier general in June 2002. Just another example - like Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice - of African-Americans advancing more under GOP administrations than Democratic ones."
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.