KILLERS WITH CAMERAS

NY Post ^ | 6/21/04 | Ralph Peters

[swilhelm73]

June 21, 2004 -- IMAGINE if, on D-Day, the Nazis had been al lowed to place camera teams on Omaha Beach — with our suffering soldiers forbidden to interfere. What if, on top of that, the Germans had invented American atrocities against French civilians — and our own officials defended their right to do so in the name of press freedom? That's the situation with al-Jazeera in Iraq.

Staffed by embittered exiles and pan-Arabist ideologues — the last Nasserites — al-Jazeera is so consumed by hatred of America and the West that the network would rather see Iraq collapse into a bloodbath than permit the emergence of a democracy sponsored by Washington.

[TomServo]

Already posted here.

[jordan8]

First, despite undeniable excesses, there's a fundamental respect for facts in our media. Second, our press is not rewarded for encouraging mass murder. Third, we have libel and hate-crime laws that work. Fourth, the great majority of journalists take pride in the standards of their profession — despite popular notions to the contrary.

Our press encourages racial violence against whites and has done so for decades. It literally encourages mass-murder and rape using techniques that are amazingly similar to Al-Jazeera's and is well rewarded for doing so. Selective hyping of atrocities (remember Rodney King?), , even invented atrocities, suppressing information that doesn't fit, glamorization of the thugs who carry such things out, etc. It boils down to a simple question: does the media paint a reasonably accurate picture of racial violence in this society?

And what do hate-crime laws have to do with it, anyway? Hate is perfectly legal, and should be, and no editor is going to be arrested for hate, or should be. Ralphie is jumping the gun here. Arrest for speaking or printing "hate" is a future project on the Peters of this world's wish list.

We need not accommodate hate-speech overseas any more than we would tolerate it here at home.

Actually the constitution bids us to do so. And this sentence means only that speech which is officially condemned by the establishment. The establishment's hate speech, lying about racial violence, Piss Christ, or "whiteness studies" in universities, to give just a few examples, is not only tolerated but lauded and generously funded.

And we have every right to demand respect for the truth.

Do we respect it at home? Is political correctness respect for the truth? Pull the mote from your own eye . . .

[I]t really isn't hard to tell the difference between honest attempts to report the news and incitement to genocide.

No, it isn't.