Skip to comments.A Litany of Lies ["the whacking of this president erases any doubt about media's liberalism"]
Posted on 09/28/2003 5:33:24 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
A Litany of Lies
By Gary Larson
September 26, 2003
The establishment media's mugging of President George W. Bush is a daily drumbeat, a smear campaign that stops at nothing. Raw partisanship in "news" reporting and punditry today is nearly pervasive.
Not surprisingly, it is reflected in recent polls. Given the intensity of the barrage, the only shocker is that Bush's popularity is not lower. Still, the steady rollback in his popularity is evidence of elite media's power. Public feedback depends on input, as in "garbage in," so poll results likely are for real.
Iraq is key. Tax cuts, invariably "for the wealthy," are up there too, joined legitimately by the economy. Being well-educated sorts, media people ought to know better. Likely they do. Collectively they have no excuse short of being louts for swaying poll results - i.e., "garbage in," a.k.a. the libeling of a modern-day president.
Sophistry in reporting and opining is shameless - as if self-parody - and heatedly denied. Even irrefutable facts are challenged, such as Big Media being staffed predominantly by the caustic "liberal" mind-set.
Mean-spirited and at times grotesque ( e.g., "Bush knew" prior to 9/11), the whacking of this president erases any doubt about media's liberalism. Seething bias is evident now even to casual observers. Notice is being taken.
Hate is the subtext of this assault. Pundits' spew hateful screeds and letters to editors bristle with hostility. Choruses of "Bush-lied" are daily fare, their premises all screwed up. Letters recycling readers' fictions find ink, duping more sadly misinformed people.
This phenomenon validates Joseph Goebbels' 1934 advice: Bombard the "primitive rank and file," with "propaganda...essentially simple and repetitive." To say this Nazi tactic works today is an understatement.
The media want Democrats to win in 2004. Desperately. That much is clear. Payback for a war media don't want? Trying to remake this war into something it's not - a Vietnam? ("Quagmire" anyone?) Besides, a score is to be settled - the damn 2000 election in Florida. Neither the media nor the "Florida Supremes" got their way. Sore losermen, indeed.
Repetition of simple lies ensures the ill-informed stay that way. Witness the cries of Bush "stealing" the 2000 election. Witness the high court "throwing the election" his way. Witness "only the rich" getting tax cuts. Lies like these, endlessly repeated, stick like dung flung at a wall. Hey, it works! Polls prove it.
What George Orwell (1903-50), novelist and ultimate realist, wrote in his essay "The Prevention of Literature" (1946), speaks volumes: "What is really at issue [regarding press freedoms] is the right to report contemporary events truthfully,or as truthfully as is consistent with ignorance, bias and self-deception. . ." [emphasis is added].
Ignorance is inexcusable, but it happens. Bias is something else. Truth might be known or sensed, but might not fit one's reality, so it needs to shaded, often craftily, to ensure a proper fit. Bias is a prism reflecting what the truly biased want to be their own reality. Writ large, Orwell called this "the fog of lies and misinformation."
Bias must "rearrange past events," Orwell said. The trick? "...not playing into the hand of" an adversary. After all, admitting someone else is (gasp!) counter-productive. Bias does that; it affects perception, both for the left and right, permitting ego to trump reality.
Self-deception is the kissing cousin of bias. Self-deception, Orwell wrote, "is not due to conscious dishonesty." It stems from adhering to a point of view that must, of psychic necessity, "acquiesce in deliberate falsification," to protect fragile egos and preserve firmly held beliefs.
Orwell observed the litany of untruths in his day, "provoked no reaction from the left-wing intelligensia as a whole." Sound familiar? Past was prologue to the silence of liberals today. They are too busy shouting "liar liar," as their own deceits gain traction courtesy of a willing media.
Near the Twin Cities, where I live, a rabid left-wing newspaper editorially assaults Bush daily, and never mind the truth. The other daily in this rare two-paper market, not taking sides at first, now edges closer to the partisan savagery of its larger, more leftist counterpart.
Alas, both Twin Cities' dailies now reveal a myopic bias found usually in only wild-eyed party organs. How do you spell A-G-E-N-D-A?
McClatchy's left-wing Star Tribune of Minneapolis reflexively calls Bush, and all in his administration, liars. Editorial cartoons depict him as a Dr. Frankenstein, a Dr. Jekell, always the Ultimate Jerk. Bush is "cowboy" (snotty for reckless), "gunslinger" (ditto), "Lone Ranger ("unilateral," and from Texas). On its front page, Bush is called "fund-raiser-in-chief." Can you imagine Clinton being called prevaricator-in-chief, or uncharged suspected rapist?
In Knight-Ridder's once moderate St. Paul Pioneer Press , a contemptuous editorial (9/9) insists the Iraq war is a "cowboy war," a Bush "adventure," marked by "unsustainable unilateralism." Yeah, like the Brits suffered no casualties? Note how "cowboy" is chic in snippy, juvenile put-downs. Have these people no creativity?
"Bush never told us," insisted the Star Tribune ( 8/20), that the war was, in part, to "free the Iraqi people." Oh, really? Then why in hell did he call it Operation Iraqi Freedom?
More lies from the same paper on Sept. 12:
1 - Iraq Iraq posed "no threat of attack with WMDs." Then why the gas masks on both sides?
2 - Saddam never "possessed weapons of mass destruction" What about the roughly 5,000 chemical-dead corpses in Halabja, Iraq. What was it, ptomaine poisoning?
3 - Bush "created a threat [Iraq] where none [sic] existed." Tell that to the Kuwaitis, Saudis, Iranians and Israelis. This parade of lies - all in a single day - continues with:
4 - Iraq had "no links to al-Queda." Only in the editorial writer's party line dreams, along with sugarplum visions of the USA actually losing a war he or she didn't want.
Spelunk the mind of a left-winger today and you will find in its dark recesses the motivation: The avalanche of Bush-bashing is an attempt to undermine him as well as "his" (not " our") war in Iraq. To heck with the war on terrorism, first things first - like getting people we approve of (like us!) elected. And if it takes calling him a lying cowboy, so be it.
To successfully brand someone a liar, it must take root among the uninformed, as master propagandist Goebbels observed 70 years ago. The only Big Question is 'why'. Shall we call it a perverse example of Orwell's definition of self-deception, or its blood relative, spiteful bias? Perhaps it's part of a furious campaign to win the next election? God knows.
Honest difference of opinion is one thing, but the on-going thrashing of Bush is sheer travesty. Americans - all of us - are diminished by its hate-based, mean-spirited brutality.
Gary Larson is a retired business magazine editor in Minnesota. He is not the retired cartoonist of the same name.
Awesome Sunday editorial from CNS News re. our enemy press. What we're up against.
If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
It's anger at the loss of the 2000 election, which, if the vote theft had worked, would have turned America into a one-party dictatorship. The klintons would have continued to rule through their sockpuppet Algore, but they were thwarted with victory within their grasp. They are furious that Bush will prevent them from attaining their goal of one-man-one-vote-one-time until 2004, or 2008. After that, they hope, there will only be "tame" pubbies (kept in line with FBI files and the klinton secret police), and easy vote theft.
The klintons have brought disaster to the RAT party, but in the process, they have established themselves as co-dictators of the party, which was their intent. They rule in ruin, but they are supreme. This is their vision for America, too. They know that tyrants in the third world can live as mini-gods, while their people suffer. Their goal is to turn America into a turd-world country with them at the top of the pile, and a democRAT/baathist party structure to keep them there.
The klintons (no sense talking about the "democRAT party", there is no effective party there outside of the klintons) are already dictators in their own party. All they need is a "tame" opposition party to lose in rigged elections, and dishonest judges to bless everything. They almost had it in 2000, except for those nasty First and Second Ammendments, which provided enough backbone to inspire the majority of the Supreme Court to do the right thing, and shut down the RAT vote fraud in Florida.
But the RATS (the klintons) will try again in 2004. If they think they can steal the 2004 election, it will be Hitlery/Weasely. Otherwise, it will be Weasely/Hitlery, which would give her a boost in 2008, by claiming she would have won in 2004 if she was on top of the ticket, and she is now a "credible" national candidate and seasoned politician.
This press knows it has the power to influence public opinion - and it knows how. Decades of research - Madison Ave, KGB, Hollywood, polls and scientific studies. The press knows what sells. They also know what destroys - and are willing to destroy the innocent for political power's sake.
The Sunday NY Times / Sunday talk shows promoting the same, latest DNC scheme weekly is no accident. The campaigns are tested on focus groups, floated as trial balloons, crafted in detail, sent out to 'friendly' press accomplices from the DNC war room before you ever hear of gravitas, quagmire, smoking guns, or credibility gaps.
Ask Tom Delay what it's like trying to get Republican policies into today's press, or for a Republican candidate to be treated objectively.
Dem. opinion is treated as "news" in America's mainstream papers. Well-promoted leftist policies and candidates of course influence public opinion. Have you ever heard of the larger women's group Concerned Women for America? Most Americans know where NOW stands. Their press promotion is largely responsible for Roe v. Wade. Public opinion is very much swayed by the press, and Judges and elected officials swayed by the public.
When was the last time you read a puff-piece about a Republican candidate, or a Republican human interest story in the mainstream press that didn't include a negative Dem. response?
As long as we're surrounded by 24/7 DNC talking points/lies, as long as the American people continue to believe this press, the country will continue to decline into socialism. It's simply the fulfillment of our basest natures, good for ratings and votes.
I spent an hour trying to figure out how to say this anonymously . . . but I couldn't. Please believe me . . . I say this not to brag, not to elicit praise or condemnation, nor for any other nefarious reason.
I say this because talk is cheap and if you're gonna "play, you should pay what you can."
I'm not rich, not even close, and sometimes rubbing two nickels together is a mental exercise only.
We're a passionate bunch at FR . . . and that's GREAT! But the wolves are still nipping at our heels. We MUST do more. We MUST support every conservative institution or cause that we can . . . both in spirit and in greenbacks.
Jim Robinson didn't put me up to this. Neither did anyone at CNSNews or MRC (Media Research Center - which is the Godfather of CNSNews). It just hit me when I read this article . . . we have to do more.
I ask each of you to look into your hearts and see if you can do more. We need you. "We" being conservatives. We've turned the corner in our battle with liberalism but the war is far from won. Please, help where you can.
We'll be exposing all the Hussein press accomplices for years, I think.
I just upped my tiny FR contribution to a still tiny $10/month.
It ain't the amount that's important. It's the investment that's important. When someone has invested in something, anything, they seem to get really motivated to see the cause succeed. That's all I was trying to say . . . we need the passion, yes, but we also need the means to achieve our goals.
Liberals don't, and never have, played fair. We've got them on the run BUT we can't become complacent. My generation allowed some things to get screwed up. I'm gonna do my part to try and correct things.
Broadcast journalism uses statistical projections to predict the outcome of the elections in the various states before the official results are available. The odds against error in a statistical prediction depend on the margin of error and the margin of victory. As data on voting accumulates and the number of unknown votes yet to be counted declines, the margin of error gradually shrinks--but goes to zero only when the official vote tally is announced. The margin of victory can be quite large or (as FL 2000 illustrates) can be quite small.
Retrospect shows that the statistical reliability of the call of a state for Gore was in nearly every case much lower than that of the call of nearly every state for Bush. In the famous case of Florida, of course, broadcast journalism's first call was not merely of low statistical quality but actually erroneous. And yet, the following day journalism focused like a laser, not on that huge error but on the ultimately correct call by Fox News.
As Coulter points out, journalism's postmortem claim that the FNC call was an illegitimate attempt to affect the outcome can most sensibly be understood as an admission that their own premature 8pm call of FL for Gore (that the relatively premature call of almost every Gore state) was an illegitimate attempt to affect the outcome of the election in favor of Gore.
Journalism believes in the power of PR, and deployed that power as strongly as it dared in support of Gore. Yet Bush won. Above all the constituencies in the Democratic party, it is journalism which was most aggrieved by the rejection of its own god.
That presumes that journalism can be spoken of as an entity, that it is an Establishment. To say that is to deny that journalism is competitive. Journalism is famously competitive is certain ways--especially being the first out with a story--but in ways that matter like accuracy, journalists all "go along and get along." It is in the nature of an Establishment to deny its own existence while viciously defending its turf, and that is exactly how journalism behaves.
FNC breaks that mold, is willing to at least insinuate that the competition doesn't live up to its reputation.
Their agenda is propaganda, not journalism.
More are coming to see that, hence their decline.
The Clinton years demonstrated to me that, if the Democrats are accusing the GOP of doing "X", it most likely means that it is the Democrats who are, in fact, doing "X". Or, at the very least, it is what the Democrats would do if they were in the GOP's position.
They project their own misdeeds onto their opponents. There is a name for this kind of pathology. In the law, it is called "guilty"...
The press can't silence the homecoming troops, or those who were awake on 9-11, or millions of Iraqis with new free speech - or the internet, the will of the free people around the world.
Keep sharing the true, good stories with others. Click my Freepname. Today alone there are many supportive stories from the press - our conservative outlets, plus a good write-up on the raid from AP and SOD Rumsfeld's wise essay in the WSJ.