Newsweek's Poetic Justice
It's interesting watching the hysteria by the mass media over the Newsweek debaucle. Does anyone besides me see this as ironic? Newsweek is pouting that they still believe the story to be true even though their source didn't work out. Some in the media have pointed to other accusations against the US military of Koran desecration as proof that the Newsweek story was indeed true...but not provable. Does this remind anyone of anything?
Remember when GW believed the US intelligence, the British intelligence, the Russian intelligence, the Czech intelligence, and the CIA director that Iraq had WMDs? How did our media treat the White House when these "sources" turned out not to be accurate? Did they then believe that the story was most likely true, but that the sources couldn't be verified? Or did they leap at the chance to villify GW and call him a liar? If, as so many in the media are currently claiming, the Newsweek story were most likely true, then couldn't the WMD "story" most likely have been true as well? Or is the Newsweek source of such a caliber that not even the US, British, Russian, and Czech intelligence can come close to the accuracy of the Newsweek source? I wonder if the Newsweek 'source' is the same source used by Dan Rather in the National Guard story?
The fallout and the scramble of the pathetic media "elite" is quite amusing to those of us in the "flyover states". Take one reporter, in the interest of "objectivity" (does anyone believe that reporters are objective?), that played schoolyard bully to Scott McClellan by asking, with respect of course, because we all can feel the love and respect coming from the media to GW, who made you the editor of Newsweek? There are several ironies in this exchange, and unfortunately, McClellan opted not to point any of them out. Irony #1: Maybe if Newsweek's editor were better at his job, this whole fiasco could have been avoided. Newsweek's editor essentially created an international political incident, and this reporter has the gall to question the White House over it?
Irony #2: Can't we ask who made these reporters the leader of the Free World? After all, don't they all mistakenly think that they are above the President? How often do we have to read some journalist's opinion on how GW ought to run the country? Can McClellan, some time in the future, ask a reporter, with all due respect of course, who made you President of the United States?
Irony #3 comes a little later in the exchange when the reporter whines about the White House putting pressure on Newsweek to retract the story. Um, isn't the media all about exerting their pressure, essentially exploiting their privelege and power, against the White House? Isn't that what media has taught us? The more pressure you apply the sooner you get what you want. Pot, meet kettle. And what kind of a NEWS organization is Newsweek if they indeed do cave to White House pressure? If Newsweek truly felt unjustified pressure, they would be all over the story, printing the ugly tactics of the Bush administration, the abuses of power that GW and his administration utilized to control American media. Deep down, most of the media elite feel that this is the truth, but they have yet to find any substantial proof to back up their beliefs and feelings. So, in the mean time, they'll cry 'wolf' about the pressures exerted by the White House without backing that up with any hard facts. Essentially, Newsweek made a huge and costly error, one that they are unwilling to completely own, and most people are not going to fault the White House for asking Newsweek to do something to fix this international mess that they created. At taxpayer expense, Condoleeza is having to go over to help undo the damage caused by Newsweek.
It becomes increasingly apparent as time goes on in this administration that the media holds themselves to a different standard than what they hold the White House to. Media makes a mistake, blame White House. White House makes a mistake, blame White House. Media believes bad source, blame White House and still believe that source is most likely true. Death comes as a result of media's actions, ignore it and blame it on the White House. White House believes intelligence of 3 different countries plus our own that ends up not being verifiable, sources are untrue, Bush lied, and deaths as a result of White House 'mistake' are highlighted and exploited at every possible opportunity.
Finally, how can so many media elite claim to support our troops while always believing the worst of them? How supportive is that? The Media Research Center (see Tuesday, May 17 Cyber Alert for all direct quotes) has been reporting about the different journalists that are saying things like "Well, with the prisoner abuses, is it so far fetched to think that the Newsweek story is true?" But, they support the troops. There are several ironies in this, as well. These journalists basically have the view that if there is one bad behavior highlighted, then most likely reports of other bad behavior are true. Did they believe this of Clinton? Where were they when woman after woman after woman stepped forward with their stories? The media was too busy falling all over themselves with love and adoration for Clinton, and attacking these women in the press. The prisoner abuse was one isolated story. Why haven't the media reported on the positive things the military are doing? How about the soldier in Afghanistan that is taking donations of stuffed animals to pass out to the Afghani children? I imagine the media would view that as coercion. Why are the media so willing to overlook anything positive regarding our military and so willing to leap on the slightest hint of impropriety? Why is the media making hundreds of thousands of troops pay for the actions of a few? But the bottom line regarding the comment above, is it far fetched to think that our media would report only facts, and report facts based on objectivity and not bias, and to not report rumors or assumptions? Obviously for the reporter above, it isn't far fetched to think the Newsweek story was true, but here's the problem. The story is not verifiable, and therefore cannot be reported as fact. And that's the sad state of the media today: they are so entrenched in their bias that it doesn't matter if a viewpoint can actually be backed up by facts. If the media believe it to be true, they will report it as true and blame the White House for the press's inability to back up their beliefs with facts.
Remember when GW believed the US intelligence, the British intelligence, the Russian intelligence, the Czech intelligence, and the CIA director that Iraq had WMDs? How did our media treat the White House when these "sources" turned out not to be accurate? Did they then believe that the story was most likely true, but that the sources couldn't be verified? Or did they leap at the chance to villify GW and call him a liar? If, as so many in the media are currently claiming, the Newsweek story were most likely true, then couldn't the WMD "story" most likely have been true as well? Or is the Newsweek source of such a caliber that not even the US, British, Russian, and Czech intelligence can come close to the accuracy of the Newsweek source? I wonder if the Newsweek 'source' is the same source used by Dan Rather in the National Guard story?
The fallout and the scramble of the pathetic media "elite" is quite amusing to those of us in the "flyover states". Take one reporter, in the interest of "objectivity" (does anyone believe that reporters are objective?), that played schoolyard bully to Scott McClellan by asking, with respect of course, because we all can feel the love and respect coming from the media to GW, who made you the editor of Newsweek? There are several ironies in this exchange, and unfortunately, McClellan opted not to point any of them out. Irony #1: Maybe if Newsweek's editor were better at his job, this whole fiasco could have been avoided. Newsweek's editor essentially created an international political incident, and this reporter has the gall to question the White House over it?
Irony #2: Can't we ask who made these reporters the leader of the Free World? After all, don't they all mistakenly think that they are above the President? How often do we have to read some journalist's opinion on how GW ought to run the country? Can McClellan, some time in the future, ask a reporter, with all due respect of course, who made you President of the United States?
Irony #3 comes a little later in the exchange when the reporter whines about the White House putting pressure on Newsweek to retract the story. Um, isn't the media all about exerting their pressure, essentially exploiting their privelege and power, against the White House? Isn't that what media has taught us? The more pressure you apply the sooner you get what you want. Pot, meet kettle. And what kind of a NEWS organization is Newsweek if they indeed do cave to White House pressure? If Newsweek truly felt unjustified pressure, they would be all over the story, printing the ugly tactics of the Bush administration, the abuses of power that GW and his administration utilized to control American media. Deep down, most of the media elite feel that this is the truth, but they have yet to find any substantial proof to back up their beliefs and feelings. So, in the mean time, they'll cry 'wolf' about the pressures exerted by the White House without backing that up with any hard facts. Essentially, Newsweek made a huge and costly error, one that they are unwilling to completely own, and most people are not going to fault the White House for asking Newsweek to do something to fix this international mess that they created. At taxpayer expense, Condoleeza is having to go over to help undo the damage caused by Newsweek.
It becomes increasingly apparent as time goes on in this administration that the media holds themselves to a different standard than what they hold the White House to. Media makes a mistake, blame White House. White House makes a mistake, blame White House. Media believes bad source, blame White House and still believe that source is most likely true. Death comes as a result of media's actions, ignore it and blame it on the White House. White House believes intelligence of 3 different countries plus our own that ends up not being verifiable, sources are untrue, Bush lied, and deaths as a result of White House 'mistake' are highlighted and exploited at every possible opportunity.
Finally, how can so many media elite claim to support our troops while always believing the worst of them? How supportive is that? The Media Research Center (see Tuesday, May 17 Cyber Alert for all direct quotes) has been reporting about the different journalists that are saying things like "Well, with the prisoner abuses, is it so far fetched to think that the Newsweek story is true?" But, they support the troops. There are several ironies in this, as well. These journalists basically have the view that if there is one bad behavior highlighted, then most likely reports of other bad behavior are true. Did they believe this of Clinton? Where were they when woman after woman after woman stepped forward with their stories? The media was too busy falling all over themselves with love and adoration for Clinton, and attacking these women in the press. The prisoner abuse was one isolated story. Why haven't the media reported on the positive things the military are doing? How about the soldier in Afghanistan that is taking donations of stuffed animals to pass out to the Afghani children? I imagine the media would view that as coercion. Why are the media so willing to overlook anything positive regarding our military and so willing to leap on the slightest hint of impropriety? Why is the media making hundreds of thousands of troops pay for the actions of a few? But the bottom line regarding the comment above, is it far fetched to think that our media would report only facts, and report facts based on objectivity and not bias, and to not report rumors or assumptions? Obviously for the reporter above, it isn't far fetched to think the Newsweek story was true, but here's the problem. The story is not verifiable, and therefore cannot be reported as fact. And that's the sad state of the media today: they are so entrenched in their bias that it doesn't matter if a viewpoint can actually be backed up by facts. If the media believe it to be true, they will report it as true and blame the White House for the press's inability to back up their beliefs with facts.
posted by PJ at
12:53 PM
0 Comments
