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

Skip to comments.

A petty, partisan press
TownHall.com ^ | 4/18/03 | Thomas Sowell

Posted on 04/17/2003 10:15:39 PM PDT by kattracks

Perhaps nothing so epitomized what is wrong with the media as Wolf Blitzer of CNN "reporting" on the war in Iraq, talking not about what had happened but about something that had not happened. No one had yet found weapons of mass destruction, he said, even though it was almost a month since the war began.

A month!

If only we could have asked Wolf Blitzer how many countries he had invaded, that he was able to blithely assume that a month was a long time to get things under control and to search a country that is far larger than Italy.

From the earliest days of the war against Iraq, many in the media have been like the proverbial little kid on a trip who keeps asking, "Are we there yet?" A notable exception have been the reporters traveling with the troops, who have apparently gotten some sense of reality from being shot at and seeing fellow Americans being wounded and killed.

As shrinking percentages of our population have ever served in the military -- especially among those in the media and in politics -- you might think that their ignorance would make them reluctant to pontificate. But, on the contrary, it seems to have emboldened more people into second guessing of a kind that was seldom seen in World War II.

More than ignorance is involved, however. There has been a systematic and persistent emphasis on the peripheral and negative aspects of this war in most of the media. Not only have the editorial office heroes fixed their attention on the little picture, they have accentuated the negative, such as collateral damage during the war and looting by civilians in captured cities.

The big story about collateral damage is how relatively little of it there was, in the midst of devastating bombings of military targets. After Iraqi civilians realized that the bombs were not falling on their neighborhoods, but on the regime's strongholds, they began going out to restaurants in Baghdad, despite nightly air raids, and it was common to see televised pictures of traffic on the streets of the besieged city.

Nothing can make war anything other than tragic. But comparing this war with other wars -- rather than with perfection -- it has been a marvel of military accomplishment and humanitarian concerns.

When historians look back on these times, the big picture they will see is the destruction of a recklessly dangerous dictatorship that has been a menace to its neighbors and a murderous scourge to its own people.

In global perspective, they will see this as the United States finally striking back in a serious way against centers of international terrorism, instead of continuing the policies of previous administrations of speaking loudly and carrying a little stick.

When Normandy was invaded, everyone understood that the big picture was the beginning of the liberation of Western Europe, not how many innocent French civilians were killed -- though there were thousands -- or how many American soldiers died from being bombed accidentally by American planes, though there were about as many killed this way in one incident in Normandy as have died in combat during the entire war in Iraq.

There is more outcry in today's media about looting in Iraq than there ever was about looting in American cities during riots. They have treated every pause in military action in Iraq as a quagmire and a sign of Pentagon plans gone awry -- even though journalists haven't seen those plans.

The more remarkable the successes on the battlefield in Iraq, the more desperate much of the media have striven to find something -- anything -- to complain about. The more the polls have shown overwhelming support for the war and the president by the American people at large, the more the media cover anti-war demonstrations and provide a forum for those who organize them.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the media are less concerned about the big picture today, or how all this will look in history, than with how the Bush administration's victory in Iraq will affect the 2004 elections. After all, studies have shown that nine out of ten journalists vote for the Democrats.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Thomas Sowell | Read his biography



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: mediabias; partisanpress; pettypress; thomassowell

1 posted on 04/17/2003 10:15:39 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BTTT. A super article!
2 posted on 04/17/2003 10:21:55 PM PDT by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
KAT! SEARCH BEFORE POSTING!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894982/posts

BAD KITTY!
3 posted on 04/17/2003 10:23:24 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Excellent!

4 posted on 04/17/2003 10:25:40 PM PDT by whadizit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ok... I wonder.. after we find WMD, then what will they be complaining .. i mean, reporting about?

Any guesses?
5 posted on 04/17/2003 10:37:30 PM PDT by LaraCroft ('Bout time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Does it matter if we find WMD's? Rush Limbaugh said a little more than a month ago that this war was never about WMD's but about regime change. We want to find them now to get back in the good graces of the traditional allies we "f"ed over but that was never the reason. Has anyone on this site ever bought for a moment that this war was about about WMD's? Syria has and always had more chemical and bio weapons than Sadaam ever did. This war was not about WMD's or directly American security. Whatever WMD's Sadaam had were given away to terrorists or their supporters once the bombs started dropping on Iraq (just to embarass the USA as the ever moronic O'ReillY Factor says). This war is about the USA trying to set up Iraq as a bastion of capitalism, law, and western way of thinking in order to destabalize the surrounding barbaric Islamic countries. Bold idea. Bold plan. But one I wouldn't take odds on.
6 posted on 04/17/2003 10:44:44 PM PDT by Burkeman1 (B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
"We want to find them now to get back in the good graces of the traditional allies we "f"ed over but that was never the reason."

Can you enlarge on this? Who did we do wrong? And why do we want to curry their favor now?

7 posted on 04/18/2003 12:17:30 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
I mispoke. We didn't "f" anyone over. But I think the administration would like to find some WMD's in Iraq. Such weapons found would justify us in the eyes of "international law" and the UN. Frankly- I don't care a hoot about either because international law and the UN are fictions. But Bush would love to find them.
8 posted on 04/18/2003 6:04:42 PM PDT by Burkeman1 (B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
As we know, this is also a public relations war. The media want to push all those millions of "undecided" voters over to the liberal side in 2004. Bush can't let that happen. That's why we will get our hands on those weapons, even if we have to lay waste to Syria.
9 posted on 04/18/2003 7:10:14 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Hold up there. Bush will not wage war against Syria just to get re-elected. That suggestion is Clintonian. Bush would never do that. If we don't find WMD's in Iraq (and they were there) then Bush will take the hit like a man. He would never risk American lives for an election. We elected him because he was the anti-Clinton.
10 posted on 04/18/2003 7:16:29 PM PDT by Burkeman1 (B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Here, here!

The Dems *want* us to attack Syria, because they (correctly) anticipate the backlash against Bush that it would bring. I said it before, and I'll say it again: we don't need to go after Syria militarily. With the right pressure, they'll gladly send the Iraqis packing. They want the Golan Heights back, and staying on our good side is the *only* way it'll happen. Attacking them would only play into the Left's hands.
11 posted on 04/18/2003 7:25:06 PM PDT by Windcatcher ("So what did Doug use?" "He used...sarcasm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
We have no intention of going into Syria. We hope the example of a free, democratic, western orientated, and prosperous Iraq will destablize and eventually cause the fall of the Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi Regimes to similiar Weastern type governments. I have severe doubts about this plan. And I think it will fail absolutely. I hope I am wrong.
12 posted on 04/18/2003 7:31:40 PM PDT by Burkeman1 (B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
...even though it was almost a month since the war began.

And just how many months playing with the UN?

And tho them that was a rush.

Silly press!

13 posted on 04/18/2003 7:34:33 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
"Bush will not wage war against Syria just to get re-elected."

Who here hasn't had 8 agonizing years of watching what a democrat will do with the power of the presidency? Just re-elected? You sound like you don't know what the democratic party is -- a criminal conspiracy to destroy America.

14 posted on 04/19/2003 12:15:40 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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