![](http://scd.mm-c1.yimg.com/image/1171951933"/img)
If you would like on or off the Louisiana Ping list please FReepmail me and your name will be added or taken off of the list.
Posted on 11/19/2005 2:46:24 AM PST by rdmartinjd
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." -- Old adage
"Well, there you go again." -- Ronald Reagan
There they go indeed. And shame on anyone for believing them anymore.
I mean, of course, the elite liberal media, who will stop at nothing to topple the Bush presidency. Not even if it means manipulating the news about war and natural disasters.
Remember all those New Orleans horror stories, the ones that could've given Attila the Hun goosebumps?
An Editor & Publisher headline that screamed, "Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane"?
CNN reporting shots being fired at rescue helicopters?
CNN's Paul Zahn decrying "bands of rapists, going block to block?"
Oprah Winfrey telling her wide-eyed audience that "gangs banded together and had more ammunition, at times, than the police?"
Eager-beaver media scribes dutifully reporting Randall Robinson's lunatic claims of people "eating corpses to survive?"
It turns out they were all just that: stories. Lies. Lies which could have been shown false had Shepherd Smith just bothered to walk into the Superdome.
And when this hysteria was found to be just lies, that should have become the biggest story of all.
But it didn't.
So most Americans are left with the initial story -- the false one. The one which tanked George Bush's poll numbers.
So it is with Iraq.
From the day America moved to oust Saddam, the usual suspects -- from CBS to the New York Times -- eagerly predicted calamity and searched fervently for any signs of it.
Yet virtually all their prognostications failed to materialize.
Casualties? Minimal. Oil fields? Protected. Saddam attacking Israel? Never happened. Post-war refugee problems? Nope. Iraqis weren't leaving; they were returning in droves to their Saddam-free homeland.
And since Saddam's removal, guess which part of Iraq has garnered virtually all of the Bush-bashing media's attention?
Why, the Sunni Triangle, of course, Saddam's home turf.
Never mind that nearly everywhere else, there is no "insurgency." Never mind that the "insurgency" is doomed so long as virtually everybody but a handful of Sunnis opposes it.
Never mind that across Iraq, the progress is overwhelming, as Americans and Iraqis together build schools, enhance security, empower civil society, and ensure a brighter economic and political future.
Never mind that most of the fighting -- and dying -- for the new, free Iraq is being done by patriotic Iraqis. And never mind that the endlessly-reported U.S. death toll is half the rate even of U.S. training deaths each year.
Never mind that literally millions of Iraqis -- alone in the Arab world -- have twice stood up to terrorist bullies, voting first to elect new leaders and just recently to ratify their new constitution. And that includes 105,000 Iraqis in Fallujah, once the heart of the insurgency, who turned out last month to vote on the new constitution.
Oh, and never mind that before each of these elections, al Qaeda proclaimed loudly that merely holding the election -- regardless of outcome -- would be a “crushing defeat” for their cause.
To the left-leaning media moguls and those in their employ, none of this matters, because all of it vindicates President Bush.
Which is partly why so little of it gets reported.
How bad is the Bush-bashing bias?
In a survey of 1,388 Iraq stories on the evening news programs of ABC, CBS, and NBC from January through September of this year, the Media Research Center found that 61% were negative or pessimistic, while only 15% were positive or optimistic, a four-to-one ratio.
Fully two out of every five stories featured specific terrorist attacks.
But it gets worse.
There were 79 stories about alleged wrongdoing by our soldiers, while only eight stories highlighted their obvious heroism and only nine featured their unending acts of compassion and generosity.
And even when the topic was Iraqi democracy -- which al Qaeda itself defines as victory for us and “crushing” for them -- negative stories outnumbered positive ones by a 124-92 margin.
In other words, heads we win, tails you lose.
And speaking of loss, there's no question that this grossly biased reporting has helped embolden the foreign terrorists and homegrown Saddamites, and caused needless loss of American and Iraqi lives.
One need not be cynical to ask whether that wasn't the idea in the first place.
Either way, one thing is crystal clear: When a media story concerns President Bush or his pro-American, pro-democracy policies, expect what you got in New Orleans: outright lies at every turn.
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice -- well, you know the rest.
-- Rod D. Martin is Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC. A former policy director to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Special Counsel to PayPal.com Founder Peter Thiel, he is a member of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy, Executive Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), and editor and co-author of Thank You President Bush, the definitive handbook to the second term.
There was a positng here some time ago about how the troops feel about embedded reorters. "Despised and distrusted"
Is it any wonder? Yet the drumbeat goes on leading on to disaster in the middle east. But the media doesnt care, because their self hatred of America rages unabated.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Good analysis. Nice to see you, Rod. :)
Why do we continue to rubber stamp the alphabet networks broadcast licenses in the face of their blatant, overzealous, and extremely partisan misinformation campaigns?
If corporate stations like CBS can convince the FCC that their level of public trust meets their broadcast license agreements, then the FCC is a completely failed agency.
If you want to make people angry, lie to them.
If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.
I have a pez dispenser filled with prozac. Truth me! :-)
Iraq Invasion Will Trigger 'Human Catastrophe,' Report Warns
by Larry Johnson
Toronto Star
November 12, 2002
WASHINGTON -- A report to be released today predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a "human catastrophe" with
casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months.
"Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq" was prepared largely by Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, also was involved. Most of the estimated casualties would be Iraqi civilians caught in the bombing, said Bob Schaeffer, a spokesman in Massachusetts for the International Physicians organization. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for what the committee called its "considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare.''
The study also looks at the impact of an invasion on the public health system and necessities such as agriculture, water and energy, he said.
"We're saying that there'll be a very large short-term impact and an even more profound longer-term impact," Schaeffer said. "The report uses the word `human catastrophe' even if it does not escalate to the level of poison gas, civil war or nuclear weapons.''
The estimates of casualties, he said, range from a low of 50,000 up to 250,000.
James Snyder, spokesman in Washington for Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the report utilizes information
about likely Iraq invasion scenarios as well as knowledge gleaned from study of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and U.S. actions in Somalia and Panama.
Schaeffer said physicians associated with the international organization also had made some inspection tours, and their
findings were factored in.
"The estimates and ranges are based on sound science and previous experience," Snyder said.
There has not been much public data on the extent of possible casualties from an invasion of Iraq.
A number of experts at the Pentagon and elsewhere have discussed the possibility of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein using human
shields and placing military targets within civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools.
Ibrahim Al-Marashi, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California who favors an invasion, said such estimates are extremely difficult because there are so many variables about how a war might unfold.
"The way Saddam would respond is such a wild card in this," he added.
LOL
Iraq Invasion Will Trigger 'Human Catastrophe,' Report Warns
by Larry Johnson
Toronto Star
November 12, 2002
WASHINGTON -- A report to be released today predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a "human catastrophe" with
casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months.
"Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq" was prepared largely by Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, also was involved. Most of the estimated casualties would be Iraqi civilians caught in the bombing, said Bob Schaeffer, a spokesman in Massachusetts for the International Physicians organization. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for what the committee called its "considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare.''
The study also looks at the impact of an invasion on the public health system and necessities such as agriculture, water and energy, he said.
"We're saying that there'll be a very large short-term impact and an even more profound longer-term impact," Schaeffer said. "The report uses the word `human catastrophe' even if it does not escalate to the level of poison gas, civil war or nuclear weapons.''
The estimates of casualties, he said, range from a low of 50,000 up to 250,000.
James Snyder, spokesman in Washington for Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the report utilizes information
about likely Iraq invasion scenarios as well as knowledge gleaned from study of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and U.S. actions in Somalia and Panama.
Schaeffer said physicians associated with the international organization also had made some inspection tours, and their
findings were factored in.
"The estimates and ranges are based on sound science and previous experience," Snyder said.
There has not been much public data on the extent of possible casualties from an invasion of Iraq.
A number of experts at the Pentagon and elsewhere have discussed the possibility of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein using human
shields and placing military targets within civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools.
Ibrahim Al-Marashi, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California who favors an invasion, said such estimates are extremely difficult because there are so many variables about how a war might unfold.
"The way Saddam would respond is such a wild card in this," he added.
It seems in that scenario the Toronto Star is reporting on a 'projected' report. Which is how I see it as it's supposed to be. They aren't claiming it has already happened.
The big problem is fictional events are being reported as historical truth. Which IOW is flat out lieing to the public for a 'whatever' reason.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything) -- Maxim of the law.
Thank you so much for posting this. Louisiana has enough honest to goodness problems to keep the media happy. If they would have simply reported the facts and dug up the corruption in the Louisiana Democratic party they could have been part of the overall clean up of the state. That of course does not meet their agenda though.
The out and out lies and distortions have made the recovery much harder because of the hype. The one's most hurt are the hard working folks who now have to justify getting some help in their time of need.
If you would like on or off the Louisiana Ping list please FReepmail me and your name will be added or taken off of the list.
Sounds good to me! I stayed in Metairie (a part of Greater New Orleans) during the Hurricane. What little TV we were able to see I heard all the lyes as well. I was really afraid - not of Katrina but what was supposedly happening afterwards. My son put a shotgun for me inside my door and told me to shoot whatever comes through. At night we were waiting for gangs to bust down the doors. Of course, none of that happened, but it put further stress on an otherwise VERY stressful situation. for the most part the MEDIA sucks! There was looting though, and we saw that ourselves.
But, but, the media's not liberal. They're corporate shills, bought and paid for by Bushco. I know that because DU tells me that every day. /crazed, conspiratorial leftist mode
The diagnosis is obvious but, with respect, the treatment is badly off-target. The First Amendment is not susceptible of improvement; what we must have is actual adherence to it. Which, at this point, would be a radical departure from current practice.It is not true that we have a right to the truth. If you and I each have the First Amendment right to speak our own mind, and if you don't agree with me, one of us is wrong - and, by the "objective journalism" theory, that one should be censored. But who decides which one of us is wrong? The government?
The First Amendment forbids the government to assume that role. What sense would it make to assign to we-the-people the role of electing our government, while allowing the government to define the truth which we must not contradict? No, the First Amendment is right, and it is actions of the federal government which subvert the First Amendment which are wrong.
How does the government subvert the First Amendment? The most famous instance is "Campaign Finance Reform" - censorship of criticism of incumbents right before an election, when it might do some good. But the 800-pound gorilla in the living room is government-licensed broadcast journalism.
The FCC plans to switch the broadcast bands from analog to digital, which will be more efficient but will make all non-digital receivers obsolete. And that some has politicians proposing to give digital converters to poor people who can't afford them. But my point is that the issue raises the question as to whether the government has any obligation to people who bought analog receivers. And that is a troubling First Amendment issue. Does the purchase of a receiver give you the right to know something? What? Do the broadcasters have the right to not be objective? Who defines objectivity? Is anyone objective enough to decide whether others are objective?
To me, on that issue the First Amendment is clear - and clearly violated by the FCC. We don't have the right to the truth, we only have the right to our own opinion - and the right to speak or otherwise transmit our opinions to interested fellow citizens without government intervention. That means that if you have a right to print, I have a right to print - on my own dime. I don't get government subsidies for printing, and neither do you.
But government censorship of you and me, in the form of prosecution of all who broadcast without an FCC license, turns the First Amendment on its head. The only "justification" put forward for this censorship is the "necessity" for broadcasting of factual information. If you restrict that to the traffic and weather reports, that would be unobjectionable and actually realistic.
But of course the real problem is the broadcasting of putatively "objective news" which is politically tendentious. The answer to that should be simple: sue the socks off the FCC and its licensees for claiming to be objective while provably being tendentious in particular cases. The cases I would choose would be the calling of Florida while the polls were still open in 2000, and the fraudulent TANG memo broadcast during the 2004 campaign. Those torts should be brought in civil court, and the FCC should end up on a watch list alongside of white men who have to avoid the appearance of racial discrimination.
It is not necessary to knock Rush Limbaugh off the air; the thing to knock off the air is the putatively objective CBS News.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.