The Murder of Nick Berg(the marxist media encites propaganda against America)

Hal Lindsay Oracle ^ | 5-14-04 | Hal Lindsay

[hope]

Oracle Commentaries

5/14/2004

The Murder of Nick Berg

Nick Berg was murdered in Iraq by al-Qaeda thugs following the decision by CBS News to air a series of disgusting photographs depicting U.S. forces humiliating Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison.

How does one justify such an editorial decision? Do the top executives at CBS and elsewhere live in a vacuum? The U.S. military has been investigating these charges since long before the media got wind of it.

The military chose to keep the investigation and prosecutions of the guilty soldiers quiet because they knew this kind of news, if released, would greatly increase the danger to our troops and prompt a series of retaliatory killings.

CBS was also well aware of that risk, and – unlike the military – CBS executives were more than willing to take it. Especially since it posed no personal risk to themselves. And, if it resulted in somebody's death in Iraq, they could look as shocked as anybody else as they report it in their next lead story.

But now, not only is the investigation in the public domain, but so are the inflaming photos. And so are the photo opportunities for partisan politicians eager to use America's international image as a weapon against the hated Bush administration.

Massachusetts Sen. Teddy Kennedy thundered about Rumsfeld's failure to react in "a timely fashion" and demanded his resignation. Funny. That's what Mary Jo Kopechne's parents said when Teddy left their daughter submerged overnight in Chappaquiddick Creek before reporting the fatal "accident."

(Ted did suffer the "terrible consequences" of losing his driver's license for one year. But he didn't have to resign. It pays to have the connections and power of the Kennedy name.)

The left is screaming for Rumsfeld's blood – but not because of any evidence of cover-up or dereliction of duty. The military investigation was already well underway and thorough.

And they aren't demanding Rumsfeld's blood because they believe he was responsible in any direct way for events taking place in one prison out of hundreds, or for the conduct of 13 soldiers out of tens of thousands.

They are demanding Rumsfeld's blood to hurt the administration. It appears of no consequence to them that we are engaged in a war of blood and death where their every word has permanent consequences for those who are fighting our battles.

Before CBS aired those photos, their executives knew there were Americans being held hostage by Iraqi terrorists. Before they aired those photos, they knew there would be an Arab backlash against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Before they aired those photos, they knew Nick Berg was also among the hostages held by Arab terrorists. They determined that the public's "right to know" overrode Nick Berg's perilous situation. And now they take solace behind their journalistic code of duty.

The photos were not needed to impart the information. The same information could have been made clear without using photos they knew would inflame virtually all of Islam. But they opted for the emotional shock value of the photos, knowing full well what kind of murderous retaliations they would spur among the Islamic fundamentalists.

I note that most news organizations didn't show the four Americans hanging from the bridge, or the video of either Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg's grisly murders. It was enough to describe them. Americans got the idea without seeing the pictures. They would have gotten the idea without releasing the Abu Ghraib photos, too.

Suppose CBS did air the gruesome photos of atrocities being perpetrated against Americans? What if we resurrected the 9-11 footage, the Danny Pearl footage, added the Nick Berg footage, the footage of the mutilation of our dead – footage that reminded America of what is at stake in this war?

If these elected officials and private special-interest groups are going to use the public airwaves to disseminate propaganda, shouldn't their public statements be pro-American, instead of proclaiming propaganda that incites the enemy to horribly murder innocent Americans?

The problem is pro-American propaganda might help America win the war, but it won't help get George Bush out of the White House. To find out which is the more important to these people, just tune in to CNN.

Hal Lindsey

© http://www.hallindseyoracle.com

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[The_Media_never_lie]

Wow, this is a strong indictment.

[cripplecreek]

I catch strategically framed comments in the media all the time. Today i saw a report on Nick Berg on MSNBC that said "Bergs family says Nick was in the custody of US forces (of course) the white house has denied this."

Seeming acceptance of anything said by the Bergs and obvious suspicion of the govt.

[hope]

Could you please pull the subtitle or repair my absence of spell checking..Sorry about that and thanks!

[Diogenesis]

[vpintheak]

It needs to be stronger, and made more public.

[cricket]

"Seeming acceptance of anything said by the Bergs and obvious suspicion of the govt."

This story has been denied; denied and denied. Others have corroberated it.

MSNBC obviously and determinedly prefers the anti-Bush interpretation of events.

Our media is totally out-of-control; they are nothing but, propaganda machines.

Remember - not toooooo long ago; when we read how the poor Russian citizens did not have a clue as to what was happeing in the world; they had to suffer Government lies and propaganda; all news filtered; to assure the desired result. And we would think; AWFUL! Horrible! 'If they only knew the truth!. . .

Well folks; here we are. We are fortunate to have the internet; and conservative talk radio; but way too many people still rely on the Lying-Left Lib Media for their info.

It is criminal how they re-craft the truth and manipulate; obfuscate; and ignore the truth. . ..

But what can we do? They still have a great deal of power.

More than depressing.

[StAnDeliver]

Exhibit A: Just a minute ago on abc news, they teased a package that appeared to be about two disc jockeys getting fired for while cutting jokes while playing the Berg tape audio; but in the package itself, without so much as taking a breath, they immediately segued into "conservative commentator Sean Hannity says he played the tape on his radio show because..." (Sean was a little inarticulate but eventually came out with 'an attempt to balance the saturation of Abu Gharib prison photos' -- a fair answer but one that missed the point due to abc's intent to snooker Sean with this piece).

First of all, the set-up on Hannity by abc in pre-loading the first part of the package with some loser disc jockeys is just heinous and completely unacceptable. But then they compounded the problem by talking to some lib prof weenie who kissed abc ass by suggesting the media has done a good job, having "been consistent by not showing the Perl tapes, the American contractor tapes, the Berg tape, etc." How ludicrous!

Nowhere at anytime did abc ask the dubious prof or even Hannity the pertinent point: Denying those tapes their due broadcast consitutes a grevious error of omission by abc and an abysmal denial of objective news coverage. And they wonder why we don't trust them anymore...

[Fester Chugabrew]

Denying those tapes their due broadcast consitutes a grevious error of omission by abc . . .

I would not expect any major news outlet to broadcast the beheading of an American, regardless of political motives. It's part of a self-imposed decency we have in our midst, and it's okay.

The internet provides ample opportunity to observe just about anything for those who are interested, but the digital age also bit us big time insofar as major media can now broadcast, with political motives, those things that once upon a time were part of censorable litigation - better kept out of view for the general welfare.

We have a seemingly big problem when it comes to "the right to know," on the one hand, and the "need to shut up" on the other hand. We need to ask whether it is always beneficial to know everything about everything. Egads. I work with people who think they have a God-given need to know everyone elses' business, and they talk as if they know it all, all puffed up with their assumed knowledge and indignation when they don't even know Jack Schitt as a friend, let alone a relative.

Sometimes it's better just to shut up, bear down, read, evaluate, learn, and do something productive.

[F16Fighter]

Massachusetts Sen. Teddy Kennedy thundered about Rumsfeld's failure to react in "a timely fashion" and demanded his resignation. Funny. That's what Mary Jo Kopechne's parents said when Teddy left their daughter submerged overnight in Chappaquiddick Creek before reporting the fatal accident.

Tell it like it is Hal!

Now if the GOP eunuchs in the Senate can trumpet the same hypocrisy PUBLICALLY.

[StAnDeliver]

"I would not expect any major news outlet to broadcast the beheading of an American, regardless of political motives. It's part of a self-imposed decency we have in our midst, and it's okay."

"Self-imposed decency"? Perhaps one could call that pleasant blue background that the CBS videographer used as a backdrop to superimpose hundreds of Abu Ghraib pictures (leashing, beatings, naked pyramids, you name it) to be repeated through a dozen news cycles "self-imposed decency"...

"We need to ask whether it is always beneficial to know everything about everything. Egads. I work with people who think they have a God-given need to know everyone elses' business, and they talk as if they know it all, all puffed up with their assumed knowledge and indignation when they don't even know Jack Schitt as a friend, let alone a relative."

Jack Schitt = strawman. Thanks for playing.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you think we would all would be better served if the beheading of Nick Berg was broadcast in its entirety on every major network?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Have you complained to FOX News about ther "grievous error of omission" since they also have not aired the beheading of Nick Berg in its entirety?

[hershey]

Unfortunately we can't appeal to CBS or CNN's patriotism, since they don't have any. So we have to make a list of their sponsors and make it clear we're no longer buying whatever they're selling.

[StAnDeliver]

"CBS was also well aware of that risk, and – unlike the military – CBS executives were more than willing to take it. Especially since it posed no personal risk to themselves. And, if it resulted in somebody's death in Iraq, they could look as shocked as anybody else as they report it in their next lead story."

Fox News = strawman #2. Again, thanks for playing.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I see a grievous error of commission by CBS, not a grievious error of omission by ABC. It was errors of omission, namely not airing the Berg beheading in full than we were venting about, and I merely wish to say it is not in the best interests of either broadcasters or the public at large to do so.

If we believe it is incumbent upon all news outlets to air the Berg beheading in full, then why not hold them all to the same standard? If any major network would broadcast such a thing, it would be FOX.