Posted on 03/29/2003 6:00:36 AM PST by txradioguy
The stench of mainstream media narcissism David Limbaugh (archive)
March 29, 2003 |
The self-absorption and self-elevation of the mainstream media in disparaging our military efforts, complaining about being kept out of the information loop, and asserting their neutrality in the war never cease to inspire shock and disgust.
Some of these reporters sound like spoiled brats completely oblivious to the gravity and sensitivity of the military matters they are covering. It's all about them and their lofty mission to inform the public, irrespective of the risks involved in prematurely releasing classified information.
At Thursday's Centcom briefing, a New York Magazine reporter whined about the quality and timeliness of the information the military was sharing. He asked why General Tommy Franks wasn't at their beck and call, rather than running the war.
General Brooks deftly responded, "First, I would say it's your choice." Translation: "There's the door; don't let it hit you in the rear on your way out." As for Tommy Franks, "He's fighting a war right now."
But there's something worse than their puerile objections to being denied access to details, the release of which could cost American lives. Many media players apparently view themselves as watchdogs over a presumptively corrupt and imperialistic military industrial complex acting at the behest of neoconservative warmongers to make Iraq a wholly-owned American subsidiary.
They ask rhetorical questions with pointed messages instead of those seeking to elicit information. It's as if they are on a mission to prove their lack of bias by being attack dogs. Their reasoning -- in the case of American reporters, at least -- must be that they serve the unique function of safeguarding the First Amendment, which is the highest patriotic calling. As long as they challenge the military loudly, disbelievingly and rudely enough, they are proving their mettle, not to mention their suitability for a Nobel Peace Prize, the Helen Thomas award for reporter-impertinence and invitations to elite cocktail parties in the Beltway/New York milieu.
In the process, instead of disproving their bias, they reveal it -- a bias against the Allied war effort or designed to embarrass the administration. Several questions at Wednesday's Centcom briefing charged the administration with covering up its killing of Iraq civilians with misguided bombs, suggesting its press briefings "are more propaganda than truth." Questions at Friday's briefing implied the administration would conceal news about American casualties and our successes to paint a falsely optimistic picture to Americans. Questioners also hinted that the war effort was exacerbating, rather than ameliorating Iraq's humanitarian crisis.
Even more outrageous is this notion among some in the American media that their obligation to be objective in their reportage requires them to be neutral in the war. How can we ever forget when ABC News President David Westin, during a panel discussion at Columbia University, asserted a duty to stay neutral as to the terrorist attacks. When asked whether the Pentagon was a legitimate target for the terrorists he said, "I actually don't have an opinion on that, and it's important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now."
You might think this offensively knuckle-headed sentiment died with Westin's subsequent apology, but think again. The Washington Post in a "news" story chided talk radio and cable TV for being too patriotic and supportive of the war and for under-reporting the anti-war protest movement -- a charge, by the way, echoed by the ever-frustrated Al Gore at a recent speech at Middle Tennessee State.
Media analysts, though, take the cake. Harvard's Alex Jones said that members of the media expressing their patriotism are doing so as part of a calculation -- presumably economic, "despite any kind of journalistic cost." And analyst Eric Burns mildly chastised Fox's Shepherd Smith for his and other reporters' routine reference to American soldiers as "our troops." Burns said it would be better if reporters didn't taint their objectivity by identifying with America's troops.
No, Eric, and Alex, what would taint them is a feigned indifference -- you don't overcome a bias by lying about it. There is nothing wrong with American reporters being supportive of America and nothing inconsistent therein with their duty to accurately report. There is everything wrong with American reporters pretending to be or actually being impartial.
It is no accident that an alternative media, in talk radio, the Internet and cable television has graciously risen up with a vengeance to report and analyze the news, without the artificial anti-Western filter through which much of the mainstream media often disseminates its news.
CCRM bump
Cogito, ergo FReepum
CCRM is a Free Republic Network affiliate working to reduce media bias.
For a comprehensive overview of Freeper thoughts on Liberal Media bias, check out our website by clicking on graphic, or HERE: We call it Fairpress.org.
This thread is evidence that liberal bias is still with us. Come join our team and engage in the battle against the Liberal Media.
Answer: By the depressed looks on the news anchor's faces.
BINGO! They see the 2004 elections slipping away if they can't trip Bush up somewhere and their best chance is to somehow portray this as a debacle.
I think Damn Blather is on antidepressants. He acts like he is either not getting any sleep or he is just so disappointed that this war is not getting worse. He's almost catatonic.
I haven't watched a second of ABC's coverage and extremely little of NBC's so I can't comment on them except that they must be even worse than Blather.
But seeing Aaron Brown on CNN is making me steer clear of sharp objects. I'm wondering if the military has decided to take out Baghdad's propaganda tools before flying in loudspeakers that would blare Aaron Brown's nauseating voice into Baghdad 24/7 until Saddam and his henchmen either surrender, commit suicide or drift off to sleep. This could even be the reason why we are flooding the region with more troops so that we can limit the exposure to our own men to this deadly toxin by having them rotate in short shifts, making them de-tox by watching video segments of Laurie Dhue and Ann Coulter.
Bush might not be a cruel enough man to do this but I'm beginning to suspect Aaron Brown is America's secret weapon of mass destruction.
So why then is "Scud Stud" Arthur Kent doing stand-ups for the History Channel? And why is "War Slut" Christianne Amanpour still doing the same schtick a decade later?
Rather actually built his name during the Kennedy Assassination. He was southern states bureau chief at CBS News in November, 1963, fielding reports on the building civil rights movement in the south when Kennedy was gunned down.
It seems to me that people like those in, say, the Black Caucus, think that the only "real" black is a ghetto black. They don't even seem to see themselves as "really" black and won't be happy until Puff Daddy is president.
Nobody said the people who BUILT their names during war could KEEP their names during peacetime. Neither of these folks is a particularly good journalist, which may explain why they are in such ... obscure ... positions, even after making headlines during Gulf I.
As to Dan Rather, I had never heard of him until Vietnam. Any role he played in reporting the Kennedy assassination has been lost to me.
BTW, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER apologize for "vanity" postings. Much of the very best stuff I've seen in 5 years on this site was done by individuals. The gibbering sreechers who protote "vanities are taking up bandwidth" complaints are the types you can bet are jacking off to Helen Thomas posters tacked up over their beds.
A number of major American newspapers and American networks have proven irrefutably that they have no respect for the First Amendment.
Period.
He said, and this is almost an exact quote: "...We're going to surround Baghdad and choke them off, or we're going to go in after the Fedayeen and kill them like the dogs that they are."
Made my day. :-)
I'll be using that "urinalism" line in the future, BTW. ;-)
Between the antics of pinko reporters and academics it's hard to keep the blood pressure down isn't it?
Came up with "urinalist" myself but I wasn't the only one to see the uhhh, analogy. Wish that I could take credit for "presstitutes"---love that word--- but at least I can claim "proftitute".
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.