April 8, 2006
Again, What "Liberal" Media?*
While watching the news one day last year, a reporter went up to a motorist who was filling his tank and asked him how he'd feel about an increase in the gas tax.
The motorist didn't like it - gee, what a surprise. But what did the reporter expect him to say?
Ask a "duh" question and you'll get a "duh" answer.
It reminds me of George Bush when says we're making "progress" in Iraq because, duh, what the hell do you expect him to say?
And the "liberal" media
When Bush or a Republican says we're making "progress in Iraq" or "Iraq is not on verge of civil war" (as if it matters since there's been sectarian violence causing dozens of Iraqi casualties every day for over two years), it's the reporters responsibility to bring out their spin and partisanship since no one - not even Bush - is that moronic to believe that "progress" is really being made.
So the question isn't "are we making progress?" or "will Iraq fall into a civil war?" The question is: "if you thought Iraq was a disaster" or "if you thought Iraq was on the brink of civil war...would you admit it?"
Now that's the question I'd like to hear asked. But never is.
When Bush brags about how wonderful it is for Iraqi's to be able to vote (since when was it alright to spill American blood so Iraqi's can vote?), why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that this new "democracy" has turned a stable secular society that women were part of, into an extremely violent and unstable Islamic theocracy that is taking women's rights away?
When Bush brags about this new Iraqi government that is being "formed," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that with absolutely no government institutions to speak of, it'll have no authority, no legitimacy, no way to enforce the rule of law and no way to stop the violence, especially when they're taking part in it?
When Bush brags about Iraqi security forces being trained, why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that three years after the "mission was accomplished," there aren't any Iraqi troops capable of handling military operations by themselves (except those that secretly arrest, torture and kill Sunni's)? And why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the irony that the insurgents and militia groups who've been creating all this violence haven't had a day's training in their lives?
When Bush brags about how the Iraqi's will eventually "stand up" so we can "stand down," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that it'll be impossible to do when they don't have any planes, tanks or armored vehicles of their own...and don't have the money to buy them?
When Bush brags that "we captured Saddam" and the "world is safer without him," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that A) he was "in his box" before the war so the world was getting along just fine with him B) he didn't have WMDs C) he wasn't a threat, not even to his neighbors and D) what it's cost to capture him?
Bush has been on this "Iraqi spin tour" for a year. But not one reporter or anchor has pointed out any of this. In fact, they continue to ask their "duh" questions and allow bush, the Republicans and their sycophants to get away with their "duh" answers. Why?
If Bush said the world was flat, would the media report it with the same straight face they're reporting the "progress" in Iraq? My god, Iraq has been such a colossal disaster, that they couldn't even redesign the Iraqi flag without a revolt!
But don't take my word for it:
"A climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons continued. Reports increased of killings by the government or its agents that may have been politically motivated. Additionally, common criminals, insurgents, and terrorists undermined public confidence in the security apparatus by sometimes masking their identity in police and army uniforms...
"Former regime elements, local and foreign fighters, and terrorists waged guerrilla warfare and a terrorist campaign of violence impacting every aspect of life. Killings, kidnappings, torture, and intimidation were fueled by political grievances and ethnic and religious tensions and were supported by parts of the population...
"Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence..."
That's not from any liberal "Bush hating" newspaper or network. And it's not from Al Jazerra either.
It's a State Department study released by Condoleezza Rice on March 8 (hey Republicans, why does the Bush administration hate America?).
So there is "no progress" in Iraq ("reconstruction" has been a myth too). And it's disingenuous for the media to go out of their way and report a school reopening for the sole purpose of providing "balance."
You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.
So by denying the truth and desperately looking for "progress" that isn't there for the wrong reasons, the media is only fooling the public into believing that Iraq is getting better, when it is not. In fact, we'll never be able to deal with Iraq practically and intelligently (insert Bush joke here) if we remain in denial and fail to admit that this is a disaster of catastrophic proportion.
So why is it taboo for the "liberal" media to be honest about Iraq? Why does the "liberal" media bend over backwards to avoid the "D" word ("disaster")? Is the media that afraid of Republicans accusing them of "hating our troops," "hating America" and "supporting terrorism"?
Hey, the truth hurts.
I'd hate to think of what would have to happen for the "liberal" media to finally be honest about this war, report it for what it is, confront Bush and the Republicans with the facts and take apart their spin word for word.
Naturally, indignant Republicans desperately need a enemy to blame so they gripe about the "liberal" media only reporting the "bad news" and not the good (despite the fact that the media practically throws a party every time there's an "election," especially the one in January 2005 when 150 Iraqi casualties went ignored and four American soldiers that were killed the following day were treated as a footnote, if at all).
Do they ever consider the fact that the only "good news" coming out of Iraq is that we're damn lucky the war isn't worse then it is?
Besides, if the media only reports the bad news, how come a vast majority of the daily deaths, destruction, bombings, shootings and kidnappings go unreported by the MSM? Why does the American wounded - 10 to 20 every single day - go unreported? And why do the deaths of American soldiers, at times, also go unreported (yea, really)?
Is it because there's so much "bad news" that it would be unfair and "unbalanced" to report it? Give me a break!When it comes to Iraq (and everything else), Bush and the Republicans don't have a toe to stand on, let a lone a leg. So you'd think a Bush administration official or partisan "we're making progress in Iraq" Republican wouldn't have the guts to go on TV and spout their nonsense because he'd be made to look like a fool (which this blog has done).
But the fact that they do turn up on these shows, proves that the "liberal" media has allowed them to get away with their spin, talking points and pathological hypocrisy,
While watching the news one day last year, a reporter went up to a motorist who was filling his tank and asked him how he'd feel about an increase in the gas tax.
The motorist didn't like it - gee, what a surprise. But what did the reporter expect him to say?
Ask a "duh" question and you'll get a "duh" answer.
It reminds me of George Bush when says we're making "progress" in Iraq because, duh, what the hell do you expect him to say?
And the "liberal" media makes it worse by reporting it with the same legitimacy and credibility as if it was true (and to think these reporters spent thousands of dollars on college tuition and worked hard to get where there are to be able to ask these "tough" questions).
When Bush or a Republican says we're making "progress in Iraq" or "Iraq is not on verge of civil war" (as if it matters since there's been sectarian violence causing dozens of Iraqi casualties every day for over two years), it's the reporters responsibility to bring out their spin and partisanship since no one - not even Bush - is that moronic to believe that "progress" is really being made.
So the question isn't "are we making progress?" or "will Iraq fall into a civil war?" The question is: "if you thought Iraq was a disaster" or "if you thought Iraq was on the brink of civil war...would you admit it?"
Now that's the question I'd like to hear asked. But never is.
When Bush brags about how wonderful it is for Iraqi's to be able to vote (since when was it alright to spill American blood so Iraqi's can vote?), why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that this new "democracy" has turned a stable secular society that women were part of, into an extremely violent and unstable Islamic theocracy that is taking women's rights away?
When Bush brags about this new Iraqi government that is being "formed," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that with absolutely no government institutions to speak of, it'll have no authority, no legitimacy, no way to enforce the rule of law and no way to stop the violence, especially when they're taking part in it?
When Bush brags about Iraqi security forces being trained, why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that three years after the "mission was accomplished," there aren't any Iraqi troops capable of handling military operations by themselves (except those that secretly arrest, torture and kill Sunni's)? And why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the irony that the insurgents and militia groups who've been creating all this violence haven't had a day's training in their lives?
When Bush brags about how the Iraqi's will eventually "stand up" so we can "stand down," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that it'll be impossible to do when they don't have any planes, tanks or armored vehicles of their own...and don't have the money to buy them?
When Bush brags that "we captured Saddam" and the "world is safer without him," why doesn't the "liberal" media bring up the fact that A) he was "in his box" before the war so the world was getting along just fine with him B) he didn't have WMDs C) he wasn't a threat, not even to his neighbors and D) what it's cost to capture him?
Bush has been on this "Iraqi spin tour" for a year. But not one reporter or anchor has pointed out any of this. In fact, they continue to ask their "duh" questions and allow bush, the Republicans and their sycophants to get away with their "duh" answers. Why?
If Bush said the world was flat, would the media report it with the same straight face they're reporting the "progress" in Iraq? My god, Iraq has been such a colossal disaster, that they couldn't even redesign the Iraqi flag without a revolt!
But don't take my word for it:
"A climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons continued. Reports increased of killings by the government or its agents that may have been politically motivated. Additionally, common criminals, insurgents, and terrorists undermined public confidence in the security apparatus by sometimes masking their identity in police and army uniforms...
"Former regime elements, local and foreign fighters, and terrorists waged guerrilla warfare and a terrorist campaign of violence impacting every aspect of life. Killings, kidnappings, torture, and intimidation were fueled by political grievances and ethnic and religious tensions and were supported by parts of the population...
"Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence..."
That's not from any liberal "Bush hating" newspaper or network. And it's not from Al Jazerra either.
It's a State Department study released by Condoleezza Rice on March 8 (hey Republicans, why does the Bush administration hate America?).
So there is "no progress" in Iraq ("reconstruction" has been a myth too). And it's disingenuous for the media to go out of their way and report a school reopening for the sole purpose of providing "balance."
You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.
So by denying the truth and desperately looking for "progress" that isn't there for the wrong reasons, the media is only fooling the public into believing that Iraq is getting better, when it is not. In fact, we'll never be able to deal with Iraq practically and intelligently (insert Bush joke here) if we remain in denial and fail to admit that this is a disaster of catastrophic proportion.
So why is it taboo for the "liberal" media to be honest about Iraq? Why does the "liberal" media bend over backwards to avoid the "D" word ("disaster")? Is the media that afraid of Republicans accusing them of "hating our troops," "hating America" and "supporting terrorism"?
Hey, the truth hurts.
I'd hate to think of what would have to happen for the "liberal" media to finally be honest about this war, report it for what it is, confront Bush and the Republicans with the facts and take apart their spin word for word.
Naturally, indignant Republicans desperately need a enemy to blame so they gripe about the "liberal" media only reporting the "bad news" and not the good (despite the fact that the media practically throws a party every time there's an "election," especially the one in January 2005 when 150 Iraqi casualties went ignored and four American soldiers that were killed the following day were treated as a footnote, if at all).
Do they ever consider the fact that the only "good news" coming out of Iraq is that we're damn lucky the war isn't worse then it is?
Besides, if the media only reports the bad news, how come a vast majority of the daily deaths, destruction, bombings, shootings and kidnappings go unreported by the MSM? Why does the American wounded - 10 to 20 every single day - go unreported? And why do the deaths of American soldiers, at times, also go unreported (yea, really)?
Is it because there's so much "bad news" that it would be unfair and "unbalanced" to report it? Give me a break!When it comes to Iraq (and everything else), Bush and the Republicans don't have a toe to stand on, let a lone a leg. So you'd think a Bush administration official or partisan "we're making progress in Iraq" Republican wouldn't have the guts to go on TV and spout their nonsense because he'd be made to look like a fool (which this blog has done).
But the fact that they do turn up on these shows, proves that the "liberal" media has allowed them to get away with their spin, talking points and pathological hypocrisy, unchallenged (speaking of which, if this disaster was all Clinton's doing - ah, misdoing - the GOP would have not only impeached him by now, but would have looked into prosecuting him criminally so they could throw him in jail. So blatant GOP hypocrisy is another line of questioning that the "liberal" media has failed to confront Republicans with.).
If the media had done its job on the non-existent WMDs in 2002 there wouldn't have been a war. If the media had done its job the last two years (more of this for example, and a lot earlier), and was reporting what was really going on in Iraq (as well as the debacle in Afghanistan) it would have pushed Bush's poll numbers a lot lower a long time ago and forced a re-evaluation and new strategy in Iraq when there was still time to secure the country and win the war.
But the "liberal" media was intimidated by the GOP into not doing its job. And now we're paying the price for it (so maybe the "liberal" media is to blame for this disaster!).
Bush certainly knew what was going on in Iraq in 2004 and could have taken it upon himself to do something about it. But that would have been too complicated, so he couldn't be bothered. Besides, manipulation, spin and the polls were always more important then taking responsibility and doing what's right. Here's proof:
First, had Bush really cared about Iraq, he'd be acting like a President and not a conservative talk radio show host (with all the arrogance, belligerence and immaturity to match).
Second, he would have been on a plane two years ago visiting world capitals hat in hand, begging forgiveness and pleading for help to stop the insurgency in it's tracks (but that would have moved Iraq to the front pages in his re-election year). And third - assuming he didn't deliberately lie the country into this unnecessary war - he would have found out why he was given information that couldn't have been more wrong regarding Iraq's WMDs so he can hold those accountable (as opposed to giving them medals).
But Bush didn't do any of that because he thought it was more important to spin this disaster and stabilize his poll numbers by handing "red meat" to his brainwashed base (the same way conservative talk radio show hosts get the ratings they do).
So Bush's re-election and his poll numbers have proven to be more important then the lives and limbs of our brave soldiers. And that should be taken as a slap in the face to every man and woman in uniform.
George Bush didn't open a can of worms with this war, he opened a box of snakes...and they're still coming out. So it's an insult to the nations intelligence for him to say we're making "progress" in Iraq.
But what's even more infuriating, is that the so-called "liberal" media has allowed him to get away with it.
September 2007 insert:
Nine U.S. Soldiers were killed in Iraq the same day that MoveOn's "Petraeus-Betray Us" ad appeared in the New York Times.
The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the soldiers within the week: 2
The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the ad within the week: over 500 (link)
If there's a liberal media, where the hell is it?
+/- show/hide this post
