Posted on 04/22/2003 9:15:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
SOME TIME in the morning of April 9, 2003, as the statue of Saddam Hussein was being hauled down in Baghdad, another statue--of Walter Cronkite, famed CBS newsman--hacked at with hammers by various bloggers, also came crashing down. Cronkite, once called "the most trusted man in America," was believed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to have turned the American public against the Vietnam War. This time, Cronkite had done his best to turn the American public against the war in Iraq, but no one paid any attention. Of course, he had been out of public life for quite a long time, but this fails to explain it: His network successors did their best to turn the public against it, and no one had listened to them, either. In fact, as Cronkite's statue was falling, reports came in that millions of former supporters of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings had put their arms down and melted back into the populace, some finding shelter in the arms of Fox News.
At the same time, word came in from numerous generals embedded in networks that the New York Times, like the city of Baghdad, might also "fall from within"--in this case, meaning that it would continue to sell and publish, but few would believe a word in it. These experts explained that while the Times had been softened up by years of sniping by Andrew Sullivan and other bloggers, the main blows were inflicted by "friendly fire"--large bombs set off within its own fortifications, by R.W. Apple and by Maureen Dowd.
This sudden collapse of the media giants is part of a culture-wide trend. As Victor Davis Hanson noted recently, a vast chasm of sense has been opened between teachers and taught, preachers and preached-at, people who make the films and people who see them, people who write books and people who read them, those who produce news and those who consume it. This calls into question a guiding belief of the culture: that power resides in the mouth of the bullhorn, if not in the barrels of guns. It is possible that people are not, after all, very malleable. It is possible that in the past, when "opinion leaders" tracked more closely with public opinion, that they were reflecting the public's ideas, and not leading it.
It is possible, too, that people can recognize swill when they see it, and learn to discount claims that run counter to what they experience. Films keep showing the suburbs as hellholes, and people keep living in suburbs. They know that this country, while far from ideal, is, by real world standards, extremely successful. They know that Iraq is not Vietnam, that George W. Bush is not Lyndon B. Johnson, and that Basra is not My Lai.
For years, conservatives have been complaining of liberal media bias, and longing for the happy days of their justification, when the public would share in their justified anger. Now it's here, but it also seems different: It's coming not from the right, but from the middle, and it feels like indifference, not rage. People aren't protesting the media; they're simply ignoring the bias. The press has gone further and further left as the Republican party reached parity status; support for abortion has steadily fallen, and opposition to quotas holds firm. It is possible that the liberal slant has gone on for so long and become so predictable that it has become white noise: a high, steady whine that drones on in the background until at last it stops being heard. People expect the Times to sometimes slant stories, and they factor this into their reading. Over time, it ceases to register. Another Times poll finds Bush in deep trouble; another film star embarks on a protest; another film is made about bourgeois repression--Oh, please.
Pity the left. In the 1960s, it was sent on the Long March through the institutions of information and culture; hoping in time to control all the bullhorns: the schools and the churches; the films, arts, and music; the publishing houses; the networks and press. And now that they have them, they turn out to be worthless. Their worst fears have been realized, and the country is growing in power and confidence. The Long March to sell us on fear and on failure is ending in freedom and flags.
With the fall of Baghdad, I somehow felt a great glow of victory. Not just victory over Saddam Hussein but even more importantly, perhaps, victory over the left.
A sense of validation that a.) we were right and b.) they were wrong. And it all happened out in the middle of the field, where everybody could see for themselves -- no instant replay needed.
The War on Terrorism is a two-front war...
When Bill Clinton, with sheepish duplicity, admitted that he smoked marijuana but, "didn't inhale", the public began to just ignore the feckless power of the media's bias to the left and began to believe their stock broker. More's the pity.
So did I. Kinda' feels like Reagan's back in the White House.
How North Viet Nam Won the War
In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was."
And on strategy:
"If Johnson had granted Wetmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units .... our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom .... if all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.
And the left:
"Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor."
Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.
Uncle Walter helped condemn an entire country to slavery.
I declined, and posted it as is, both on FR and on my own website. Especially for the section on Rather, CBS and Cronkite, I think Freepers will especially appreciate it. (First link, below.)
Congressman Billybob
Impossible?
Just watch Hillary Run.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham claimed that "the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible."
It is more than possible - highly likely in fact.
"Films keep showing the suburbs as hellholes, and people keep living in suburbs. They know that this country, while far from ideal, is, by real world standards, extremely successful. They know that Iraq is not Vietnam, that George W. Bush is not Lyndon B. Johnson, and that Basra is not My Lai."
Talk about disconnect. We almost have them (the media) beaten. Public education needs to be next.
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.