Posted on 11/12/2001 9:32:58 AM PST by Rightfield14
For the last several years, Conservatives have accused the Mainstream Media of displaying a liberal bias in their reporting. Over the last several weeks, the criticisms have risen sharply, so much so that Media Moguls, their underlings, and pundits are now examining reporting styles and making adjustments, or apologies, accordingly. Despite these adjustments, the public seems more aware than ever that something is amiss in the newsrooms.
How could they not?
Despite the passing of an entire year since the election fiasco in Florida, where the Florida State Supreme Court decided to play footloose with the rules and the Supreme Court was twice forced to intercede, pundits are still discussing various degrees of chads and dragging out updated photographs of Al Gore. Never in the history of politics has the loser received so much attention, have illegal votes carried so much weight, and still unsubstantiated claims of "voter disenfranchisement" been taken as gospel.
Despite the passing of nine months since President Bush took office, we are still treated to almost daily updates on the life of former President Bill Clinton. With near orgasmic pleasure, the Mainstream Media reports his activities in excruciating detail, engaging in a form of political necrophilia as they fawn over the corpse of a now dead and gone Administration. They litter the news with pop polls comparing a powerless former leader to the current President, as if the former still actually had any clout. They prop up as laudable an impeached, disbarred, scandalous miscreant whose legacy consists of selling access, selling pardons, selling technology to known proliferators, and, of course, being a great Stain Maker, but continually question the integrity of a man who has consistently remained true to his campaign promises. If former President Clinton were to pass gas, no doubt it would make the 11:00 p.m. news cycle; yet Heaven forbid the television networks interrupt their regularly scheduled programming for an important speech by the current President on the state of the War on Terrorism.
Despite the legendary monstrosity that took place on September 11, 2001, with thousands still unaccounted for and buildings still smoldering, pundits first condemn the President for acting too hastily, then condemn the President for not acting swiftly enough, and some condemn the President for acting at all. Were these folks born yesterday? Are they completely oblivious to the 20 years of terrorism we have faced, the logistical problems we are encountering, and the continued threat these creatures pose to our country?
Despite the well documented brutalities of the Taliban, where women are stripped of any humanity, girls undergo horrific sexual mutilation, mothers rushing their ailing children to the doctor are shot in the streets for being outside of their homes unaccompanied, men who don’t comply with any number of ridiculous dictates are crucified, tortured, or murdered outright, pundits still claim that we need to "understand" the terrorists. What’s to "understand," other than these vile creatures are some of the most despicable wastes of flesh ever to walk the earth, that they pose a grave threat to the United States which must be eliminated, and that millions of Afghans are praying for liberation from their suffering? We’re supposed to patiently "understand" barbarism of this magnitude, but whip ourselves into a wild frenzy over a frivolous joke about pubic hair on a can of soda.
Fascinating.
Finally, despite the fact that thousands of Americans made charitable contributions to funds for victims and survivors of September 11, fully believing these funds would go directly to those who needed them, we are not supposed to become upset when these self-promoting organizations decide to divert the funds for "other" purposes. We’re supposed to blindly accept the notion that these organizations need new infrastructure more than the victim’s families need to make their mortgage payments. We’re supposed to "understand" when $171,000 is diverted to provide legal aid to suspected terrorists being held in Brooklyn.
Nope. No bias here. None at all. ***
© 2001 Linda Prussen-Razzano
Is this confirmed? I know there have been all sorts of allegations, but I want something I can rub someone's nose in.
A Legal Aid Society spokesman was on Bill O'Reilly and told O'Reilly that the Society recived $171,000
from the Red "Double" Cross's Liberty Fund.
Why do you describe the Red Cross that way?
Legal Aid denies the money will be used to help the detainees. OTOH - once it gets into their bank account - who can say????
That's just the point--No one CAN say... Money is fungible...
I suggest you do the same.
Shalom.
It's too late for me.
I fell for their bait and switch back in 1993, when I was told I was contributing to a "targeted" fund to aid the Midwest Flood victims. There was never any such dedicated fund. All money went into the general fund.
My money probably wound up buying lap-dances for Mohammed Atta and his friends, under some "Multi-Cultural Hootchie-Coochie Diversity Grant" program.
No, I am serious.
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.