#1
Pity they didn't include Condie Rice. She has greater accomplishments than any of the others, both Republican or Democrats and she is certainly hotter than Madeleine Allbright. Ans she is Black.
#4
My EYES! IT BURNS! Make it stop! They remind me of the character one of the Wayans brothers used to play on In Living Color, the one people would scream when they saw and 'she' sang like a howling dog.
It persuasively argues that Jamaat ul-Fuqra provides the Jihadi movement with a powerful support capability in the United States not merely because of the compounds but because of its member's intimate knowledge of the way the dark underbelly of America works. Many of Jamaat ul-Fuqra's members were recruited in prison and know (I dare say better than most Belmont Club readers) how to commit "white collar crime" (WCC). They are the ultimate in street-smart. They used:
Jamaat even knew how to raise "funds through fraudulent charitable organizations claiming to support a particular cause such as disaster relief or food services" and bogus Worker's Compensation claims.
...
#1
Just wondering, but shouldn't this be on Page 1 or Page 2?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
10/15/2005 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IIRC, because of his exhalted status (like Steyn or VDH) where you're allowed to post any of their work, Mods policy is he's been placed on Pg 4...good question though
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2005 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
During the Reagan years, and even during the Gingrich years, the central complaint about the mainstream media by conservatives was that they misrepresented the substance of our policy proposals. A 4.5 percent budget increase (after adjusting for inflation and the size of the beneficiary class) of the hot lunch program was characterized by the media as a cruel cut in the program that would leave poor little children hungry and with empty tummies, thus causing empty minds. (The second part was true, but that was due to the damage caused by National Education [SIC] Association -- not the government-provided nutrition programs.)
A guarantee that the current traditional Medicare program would remain available for any beneficiary who wanted to participate in it was called an end to such benefits. Increases in spending were called cuts. Guarantees were called broken commitments.
Reagan's war efforts to defeat communism and create democracies in Central America were called support for fascism and brutal right-wing regimes. (Funnily, the effect of his "support of fascism" resulted in an unprecedented blossoming of democracies in Central America.)
Oh, for the good old days. Then, at least the media cared about the substance of our proposals -- even if they lied about them. (Of course they also calumniated the personalities of conservative leaders, but that was only part of the coverage. We should have been grateful.)
Today, big media has lost interest in policy substance almost altogether. Analyses of major policy announcements are viewed, almost exclusively, through the prism of polling numbers.
If the president were to call for two plus two to equal four, the media would report that such a proposal had the support of only 42 percent of likely voters, and a slippage of even conservative support from 87 percent to 63 percent. Perhaps on the jump page, in the 38th inch of the story in the New York Times, they might get around to quoting a professor of mathematics from MIT to the effect that, in fact, the president was right that two plus two still equals four. But for television and radio break news, the story would end at the polling result, which is bad news for the president.
What brings this melancholy observation to mind was the grotesque non-reporting of President Bush's arguably historic remarks last week concerning the nature of the enemy in the "War on Terror," that until last week was the enemy of which we dared not mention the name.
For the first time the president of the United States named the enemy: "islamfascist" and "radical, militant Islam." He compared it to the Nazi and communist ideological threat of the previous century.
I and others had been calling for precisely such language. From what one had heard, there had been a powerful debate going on within the administration for over six months on the advisability of such verbal boldness. So long as political correctness blocked even the president from naming the enemy, he -- or future presidents -- would be unable to provide leadership to the nation. If a president could not name the enemy, how could he provide the vital war leadership of explaining the danger and advising the public on the necessary strategies? How could the progress or lack of progress be rationally discussed with the public?
And in this shadow war that lacks the classic war battles that told previous war generations of victory or defeat, how could the public begin to even understand that there is nonetheless a battle raging that may define their lives and safety for generations to come?
There were serious arguments against such language being used. Reasonable people feared that any mention of Islam in the context of the war on terror might needlessly outrage and estrange countless millions of non-radical Muslims around the world -- thus driving them into the enemy camp.
Countering that argument, I, and others, made the case that, to the contrary, by defining precisely and explicitly the enemy as only the radical, jihadist, fascist element, we were narrowing the scope of our definition of the enemy. And anyway, even unstated, doubtlessly millions of people falsely had assumed we thought we were at war with an entire religion -- rather than only with those who espoused and acted on their violent ideology.
But million-dollar nincompoop television news stars led with the absurdly ignorant observations that there was "nothing new" in this speech, and that the president was not likely to improve his reduced 35 percent public support for the Iraq war.
Having decided that the speech (which they manifestly did not substantively understand or report) was not going to make the president immediately more popular, their reporting trailed off into a rehash of his other current political problems.
One doesn't mind, so much, mainstream journalists being b-st-rds. It's being such dumb b-st-rds that one finds so irksome.
#1
Oh the media understood the speech all right. they fully understood every single point.
They are deliberately failing to report it accurately.
First because it would show Bush in a good light and gives americans imspiration and hope - and the media can never allow them. Instead they make the absurb assertion that a teleconference was 'staged' - it wasn't.
Second is the support their [the media] allies - the Terrorists, the Dictators, the Murderers, the Communists, and true Facists.
It isn't by 'mistake' or 'in error' but cold blooded calculation to help bring america down. All because the Media hates america - and George W Bush.
The Media hates America. They hate the freedom - where someone can call them liars. They hate the equallity - where uppity joes can talk back to the 'Media Elite' who, of course, know much better then we do. The Media wishes for the 'good ole days' where they controlled everything you see and hear.
Fuck-em. Line them up against the law and treat them like the dictators they love so much would treat them.
This is the html summary of an interesting 18 pages pdf analyzing the very lopsided coverage of Irak, downloadable at link.
ABC, CBS and NBC¡¯s Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq
Executive Summary
Ever since the United States and an international coalition toppled Saddam Hussein¡¯s dictatorship in the spring of 2003, the Iraq war has dominated network newscasts. Since then, there¡¯s been a lot of undeniably bad news, as terrorists have launched a savage campaign to thwart efforts to establish democracy in a major Arab state. But are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge? Are the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq¡¯s new democratic leaders being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports?
The answer to both questions is: Yes.
This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC¡¯s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings:
¡ö Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).
¡ö News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.
¡ö Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV¡¯s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.
¡ö Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq¡¯s political process ¡ª the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife ¡ª than found optimism in the Iraqi people¡¯s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights ¡ª January 30 and 31, just after Iraq¡¯s first successful elections.
¡ö Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.
¡ö It¡¯s not as if there was no ¡°good news¡± to report. NBC¡¯s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad¡¯s business district, ABC showcased the coalition¡¯s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded ¡°Death Street,¡± and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV¡¯s Iraq news.
It is probably predictable that journalists would emphasize bad news, but network TV¡¯s profoundly pessimistic coverage has shortchanged the accomplishments of both the U.S. military and Iraq¡¯s new leaders and has certainly contributed to the public¡¯s growing discontent with the war. Just as it would be wrong for reporters to conceal any bad news, it is wrong for journalists to downplay the good news that is being made in Iraq. Reporters have the responsibility to fully inform citizens about progress that is being made amid great sacrifice, and they are not doing so.
#1
I guess there is no law which would force anyone to report good news, so it would seem that a bunch of editors and producers have decided that bad news sells, good new does not. Pure economics, people.
Note to Fred: If you want more in your tipjar, only post the bad news. Right.
Posted by: john ||
10/15/2005 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The MSM is on the side of the enemy. They would be traitors, if they were Americans.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
