Operation Valentine..... Freeping Peter Jennings

Although 9/11 brought a temporary halt to most of the broadcast media's leftwing bias, it is now back, and it's "business as usual" with America's newscasters. Therefore, our *jihad against the media* continues.

Last year, Operation Valentine netted CBS/Dan Rather 50,000+ "unvalentines", and we are fairly certain it provided for a somewhat uncomfortable year for Rather, as we focused attention on his long-time, ongoing liberal bias.

In our continuing battle again liberal media bias, this year's operation valentine is to be directed at ABC and Peter Jennings. A visit to the CCRM website will show Peter has been the recipient of more "Media Bias Outrage of the Weeks" than any other single broadcaster, as well as a special *freep*, "Spintasia, brought to you by Walt Disney, starring Peter Jennings".

Specific examples of Jennings'/ABC's bias can easily be found by visiting the Media Research Center website and doing a search on "Jennings".

Jennings has consistently and repeatedly denied the presence of liberal bias in the media. But listen to this:

"We may tell you all the time that our principal aim in life is to communicate and assist, inform, whatever the fancy words are, our audience. But if you see injustice and you can get people to do something about it, ahh, it's just a glorious feelings... There's nothing a reporter likes more than to have an effect on policy." - Peter Jennings, August 24, 2001, interview with CBS's Mel Gibson.

Jennings continues to serve as lapdog to the Clintons, as well: "The Court also said that the former President cannot argue cases before the Supreme Court even if he wished to. He can appeal, but his legal license has already been suspended in Arkansas for dishonesty in the Paula Jones case". (October 1, 01). Peter, the correct terminology for the circumstances are "...suspended in Arkansas following his conviction of perjury in the Paula Jones case"!!

Since 9/11, Jennings has especially found the concept of "patriotism" or "loyalty" troubling. It is far from our intent to serve as "patriotism police", but on 9/11, his questioning of President Bush's actions - "some Presidents do it brilliantly and some do not" - were fairly inappropriate, given the gravity of the situation.

After the war in Afghanistan began, ABC's willingness to provide a relatively uncritical platform to our enemies, eg. civilian casualties as reported by the Taliban, was pretty breathtaking. Rich Noyes, of Media Research Center, reported their monitoring had shown ABC's World News Tonight devoted nearly four times as much of its newscasts to unconfirmed Taliban claims of civilian casualties as CBS, and almost twice as much as NBC. This, in addition to Peter's "root causes" whine.

This, of course, from a network that instructed its employees NOT to wear American flag lapel pins, which might indicate an American bias to the world. (WHAT??? - If only it were true!). Some words from one of President Bush's speeches come to mind here: "You're either with us or with the terrorists." If so, where does that place ABC?

So Freepers, what do you say? LET'S once again send a message to ABC and Peter Jennings about what we think of their BIAS! Some *hearts and candies for the abc dandies?

Snail mail is most effective........Spend a Buck or two....... send several cards..... send a fax.

"Well Lan, I would differ some with your assessment."

eh?
What's this?
Only possible answer is, you're an optimist!!
While obviously I am not. {g}
Not a pessimist, either; I fancy myself a realist.
FWIW.

"It's a forgone conclusion here on FR that the lamestreamers are a bunch of three-piece-suit-socialists. The problem lies in where and how to attack the beast."

Well.
Not to parse words or anything; however, I would differ some with your assessment, this time. ;^)
Insofar as it is not a forgone conclusion, a'tall.
It should be the A#1 & only conclusion; one whereby we dwell forevermore.
The threat from these Socialist quisling-buggers is that great; now, that's part's a forgone conclusion.
Be that as it may, I said I wouldn't parse words & I won't; nor, will I split hairs with semantics, either.
Still; if it is forgone; it shouldn't be -- IMO.

"Additional thoughts?"

HA!
I'd have thought you'd have learned by now. :^)
Just a couple...maybe.

"My contention all along has been to strike at the root of the problem, but WHERE is it?"

The classroom is one place; for parents to start.
The other is for those same parents to throw the television out the window.
Think that'll happen?
Let us remember the hoards we speak of were yesterday's children who're now adults & having children of their own?
Two generations whose reality never knew anything but television.
You & I are old-timers by comparison to those we're speaking of, btw.
Ever wonder why we're (you & I) not necessarily *infected* by this sickness?
Think about our upbring, FGS; & the role television played?
For us, TV played a very limited role if any a'tall, eh?
Yet, we've even all kinds of contemporaries to deal with who're every bit as caught-up with the baloney as any 10, 15, 25 or 35 year old so the problem is pervasive, spanning decades.
*Just* like Liberalism at that, right?

"WHAT does the beast survive on....money alone?"

Money & stupidity.
One thing we, or you guys at CCRM must begin to understand is that US corporations & business are NOT pro-conservative in any way, shape, or form.
They're pro-business; & as such?
Want only to make money; with the LEAST amount of headaches -- which incidentally, means to hell with, "patriotism," "morals" etc et al.
After all let's not be nieve'; MANY of corporate America's stockholders vote 'Rat, y'know?
So...for CCRM or anyone else to get the idea in their noggins [they] are the *friends* of Big Business is absurd.
Big Business doesn't have any friends & don't forget that, either.
Big Business will thrive under Socialism every bit as much as Capitalism & so from BB's POV?
~"Give 'em what they WANT & do NOT be concerned they know-not what it is they're asking for."
They don't care; understand -- they couldn't care less.

"Can we, and/or other like-minded folks cut off its means of survival. Tall order IMO, but a worthy one that must be filled nonetheless."

Yes.
A tall order, indeed; changing the Mississippi might turn out an easier task.
But lookit; IF YOU WANT TO CUT-OFF THEIR, "MEANS OF SURVIVAL"??
We must cut them off; period.
They DENY us the truth by either lying, obfuscating, or via [the Sin of] omission.
We counter the lying with truth.
We counter the obfuscation with clarity.
We counter the Sin of Omission by omitting them.

Sounds easier than it is, yea; but then, they've a lic from the FCC to do what they're doing.
We don't just pay them via the commercial time they'll run.
We pay them with the time of our lives.
I'm afraid we've bred a new generation that'd not know what to do without 'em, now; nor, where they'd even begin filling the empty time of their lives now filled with nothing but television.

Those people needed to be taught the *skill* of surviving television.
TV's as tough to kick for 9 of 12 people as is booze or tobacco.
In that respect alone, we're dealing with an addiction.

Now then; how good are you at making fun of someone if & when they cited something as a matter of fact they'd gleened off of NBCABCCNNCBS, hmmmm?
Think you could shame them?
They'd have to respect & trust you first; in-order for the shame thing to fly, y'know.
Yet, shame's precisely what's needed.
Shame's a powerful enough stimulus (for most) to motivate those in our peer groups to simply turn it off, & cancel the cable service.
Of course there's also been a lot of conjecture on the LACK of shame in this last generation, too; so that's a dynamic which could be a wild card, eh?
Plus; people just HATE being told anything; and, for a variety of reasons too long to enumerate here.
Other than to say they'll resist any effort at enlightment to truths of any stripe; guarenteed.
These days, everyone's telling someone something.
We're saturated with that behavior & people have learned to cope, by simply shutting down.
Could even get down right nasty if one were to force the issue?
Got that kinda *fight* in ya, FGS??

Now you had your optimistic input at the front-end of my shtick; & now?
You will recieve mine in response to anyone's chances of successfully executing what's been suggested it'd take to alter the behavior(s), as noted.

...good luck.

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.