Skip to comments.The Media Want the U.S. to Fail - (proof galore from Cliff Kincaid at AIM.ORG)
Posted on 06/30/2005 1:36:43 PM PDT by CHARLITE
We recently got a call from Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune, who we later found out is the "public editor" of that paper. That is supposed to mean that he objectively analyzes complaints about the paper's coverage. He was calling us because we were critical of the media's misreporting of the Iraq War, and we contend that the coverage is a major factor in the military recruiting problem.
His bias was apparent in his approach. In his column he did mention a couple examples we cited, but he conveyed his prejudice in how he wrote his piece. Don't take our word for it. Creag Banta sent us a copy of a letter he had sent to Wycliff. This letter says it all. He notes that Wycliff starts out by referring to "an organization called Accuracy in Media." This is clever bias. In other words, the organization is not really committed to accuracy in media, it is only called that. Creag Banta writes, "Cliff consistently comments on media representations of fact that are loaded with emotionally slanted language. Your response honors what he is doing by presenting your position through the same slanted language."
Banta goes on to cite more examples. Wycliff, for example, refers to the "so-called war on terror." Banta asks, "What would you call it, accurately" Wycliff uses the phrase "so-called" to cast doubt on what we are doing. It's as if he believes in some grand conspiracy that the war on terror is just a cover for depriving Americans of their civil liberties. Or perhaps he believes it's just a scheme to take control of Middle East oil supplies. By using the phrase, "so-called," Wycliff enters the Michael Moore camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Of course they do. Any good news for America is bad for the radical socialists that want to hi-jack our free Republic...pretty easy to see, hear and understand already...
What the DemocRATS and their toadies in the "media" want is "another Vietnam." They become hysterical and go over the edge when the good guys win.
Who cares, the Lame Steam Press is yesterday's news and will continue to diminish in importance as the days go past!
What's interesting about the left's obsession with Vietnam...which they consider one of their greatest successes, is that they still lost. While we may have left 'Nam, the political advantage they sought...and still seek today, was a failure.
Nixon was still elected twice with everything they threw at him, and if not for Watergate, another Republican may have followed. The fact that they continue down this path is just another indication of their neurosis.
Do they just really hate Bush that much or am I missing something here? Surely the dems and the media don't want America to lose the WOT.....do they? Or is it they don't want a Republican admin. to win the WOT? Don't we all lose (right or left) if America loses the WOT? I'm very confused.
I think the difference between Viet Nam and the war to defend against radical Islam is this:
The Viet Nam era "anti-war" and MSM crowd wanted their Ho in Hanoi to win. (Post war comments by NV general Giap praised the American press as his "most valuable guerrilla.")
No one in today's "anti-war" and MSM crowd (I hope) wants radical Islam to win. They do want, as Ellen Ratner put it, Bush to "mess up."
Of course a "mess up" would mean a larger number of U.S. casualties -- but as a letter published in the S.F. Chronicle put it, the losses would be worth it to get rid of Bush.
The "anti-war" and MSM crowd sees domestic political advantages for them but also, just as important IMO, they want the U.S. to have to crawl to an international group and hand over responsibility and our military to it to fight the war.
One thing is the same however, "Bring it all down, man" is the objective.
The radical socialists/commies will get their come uppance when/if we get hit again.
For a reference, see Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. These people have been doing this for decades, to the point were we had an actual US President conspiring with the Soviets for the electoral defeat of Reagan.
The last thing these libs want is a successful conclusion to this war. And while I have no doubt that if this was Clinton's war they would be supporting it, they just cannot allow Bush (and America) this victory.
While much of this is politics, there is also a vitriolic segment of the Left that cannot stand America's strength and power relative to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this segment now has a greater voice and influence in the Democrat Party than ever before.
You are 100% correct.
"These people have been doing this for decades, to the point were we had an actual US President conspiring with the Soviets for the electoral defeat of Reagan. "
It started in the 20's with the bolshevics - The NY Times covered up Stalins theft of the Breadbasket of Europe to build the biggest war machine in the world and thats how we got WWII.
"What the DemocRATS and their toadies in the "media" want is "another Vietnam."
NO MORE NAMS! GET THE PRESS NOW!
The mainstream media is populated and dominated by those personality-types that think that the only way they can win is for everybody else to lose. Since GW Bush symbolizes success in America and the world, the greatest animosity must be directed to him, and then the American military, etc., as successful symbols of success. The reason most of these mainstream editors and columnists have been so critical and resentful of success is because they feel anything but successful at what they do. So instead of improving their own failing newspapers and poor writing abilities, they are so presumptuous as to tell the President how to run the country and lecture the Pope endlessly on what is moral and virtuous.
In their revised world view and history, losing is winning -- and so when you thought these mainstream media personalities were losers of the greatest magnitude, they're trying to convince us they were the real winners, they're really the President of the United States -- if only we'd open our eyes and listen to them. Thus they counsel, "Winning is losing. Good is bad. Up is down. Left is right." Stay tuned for tomorrow's directives on how you ought to think -- as they decree.
I agree that it started much earlier...however, it has become more pervasive than ever before. These more radical elements were often kept in check, relegated to the fringe by many of their own party faithful.
What we see today, is a party faithful that is embracing this element. I never thought I would see the day that Michael Moore would be a guest, sitting next to a former Democrat president at a nationally televised convention. While these elements did exist in the past, they weren't paraded out front like they are today.
"however, it has become more pervasive than ever before."
No - it was worse back then but now, the MSM no longer has a monopoly and we just know of it better.
Back in the 30's, there were newspapers that were not towing the marxist line. They were showing the millions being killed by Stalin in 1932. The Hearst papers were one group but he was hounded to death and ridiculed by the intelligentsia - e.g. "Citizen Kane", the "greatest" movie of all time.
The "L" word is not liberal or leftist -- it's "Loser."
That's why whenever they see "W," they go ballistic with hatred, fury and righteous indignation.
You're talking about newspapers and the media...I'm talking more about "the party." If we're talking newspapers and media, than we can say they have been this way since the founding of the country. What I am talking about (in response to the posters question) is the attitude of Democrats and their zeal to destroy any Republican, even at the expense of destroying this nation.
In fact, I would say that Vietnam was the turning point for this reformation. Political disagreements aside, what the Democrat party is doing today just wouldn't have been accepted 50 years ago. In fact, we had laws (Sedition Act, etc) and congressional committees (HUAC) that saw to that. From my perspective, this is a relatively new phenomena, born during the 60's.
"You're talking about newspapers and the media...I'm talking more about "the party.""
OK - but the dems and MSM have been in bed for a long time.
They really hate Bush that much.
They are totally illogical, so don't try to follow their logic.
They are irrational and would wish the country destroyed, wish our cities nuked, wish anything rather than see Bush succeed.
And if our cities were nuked, they would blame Bush, rather than their own actions.
If you understand that their emotional level is fourteen, and that like a fourteen-year-old the only thing that matters when they are angry (and the liberals are always angry these days) is that they get what they want and that anyone who stands in their way must pay.
If you understand the rage you will begin to understand them.