Have you seen hide or hair of the Telegraph's reports in any of the mainstream media. FNC has mentioned them, of course. Plus talk radio. And they're all over the internet.
But nary a "boo" from the Axis of Elitists -- ABCCBSNBCCNN, TimeNewsweekUSNWR and the NYTimesWashPostLATimes.
Nothing...
Bullseye Okie.
I've thought about this. The liberal/lefty establishment line is to ignore these matters. They might report a thing or two, but no follow-up, no connecting the dots.
These are great stories that the public will love full of intrigue, spies, money - most everyone enjoys that stuff. But the "quality press" virtually ignores it, despite the sales such coverage would generate it.
A classic piece of deflection was in Sunday's NYT Magazine. A soft-liberal line piece worrying about losing so-called "Europe", etc. Buried in the back of the article was a paragraph or two complaining about French behavior. I think these were only included because "the people" know via the internet, and maybe talk radio, that there is damning information out there - so to keep any semblance of validity such info need be acknowledged, at least dismissively.
The NYT piece was so ridiculous. Blaming "America" for France and Germany getting together for their axis meeting - as if this wasn't a Eurocentralist plan for years.
Another tactic is to marginalize the voices of the majority of European govts. who dissent from the French "European" line. Also, the liberal/lefty discourse essentially omits any analysis of the money/power motives of the axis' behavior and positions. Brief mention may be made, but then the spinmeisters return to the slant that the axis acted for humanitarian matters.
The liberal/lefty discourse is discombobulating - they are searching for a rote definition of the war, and are having trouble. The museum story, Shia clerics, etc., no angle making "America" "wrong" is gaining traction. All they have is a jumble of accusations. Another attitude is the "pro-European" one - we, again, have insulted "Europe" who is wiser and more experienced than our cowboy-tainted souls.
Here's some quick thoughts about the discourse:
1. Coverage about France, Oil for Palaces, UN, money and spies does nothing to confirm and further the presumption that all wrongs are responsive to American wrongs. And if they're not they are lied about or not deemed worthy of reporting.
2. Coverage doesn't further the project of the anti-American historical narrative, so they are lied about or omitted.
3. Coverage doesn't jibe with the sense that criticism of "America" must be treated as un-self-interested opinion of the criticizer. The commentary, esp. with the NYT types, expresses guilt about "European" feelings. If constructive, they concede a few problems aren't our fault, but return to some kind of therapy-like attitude where "we" need be understanding and concede all to the ruffled-feathered French.
4. The UN can only appear corrupt with close attention. Further, it impugns the general attitude of corporate-left globalist goals so it must be ignored. The real world of national interests being asserted, not thrown aside in world forums like the UN doesn't gibe with people who think they speak for the world. The people protesting with pictures of Earth, the ones who say "the world wants" and speak in the "global`we'" - coverage about French interests only give lie to their arrogant and facile prejudices. Therefore the coverage is ignored.