The Media at War

My Veterans Day post will go up tomorrow.

From President Bush's post-Election November 8th Press Conference:

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America's strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

Read the entire speech. It's worth the listen.

Now, I don't think our enemies should dictate the will of our people one way or the other. But there is no question that they sought to influence our Election and that they pay close attention to the effect that they have on our media and our media's perception. Now consider the following:

The Republican Party defeat in the US mid-term elections and the resignation of Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld are greeted with delight in the Middle East media.

There is almost universal agreement that Iraq was to blame for what one commentator describes as the demise of "the hawks' dominance".

Did the "Middle East media" forget to pass along to the Jihadists, President Bush's Press Conference speech? The message of November 7th to the terrorists is that America has thrown out of power (supposedly) the political party that is the bane of Al Qaeda's existence; the party of terrorist hunters and Jihadist-killers have been rejected by America. Isn't that such a wonderful message to send to our enemies? I guess Democrats weren't the only ones who ran a brilliant campaign (tie all state and local issues as a referendum on Bush and Iraq): so, too, did the insurgents and Jihadists with every IED explosion and with every sniper attack. To deny that they did not seek to influence the Elections is to be in denial. And the media, such as CNN, were complicit. Useful morons.

Most of my friends are liberal. I think half of them are just victims of bad information. Many of the clients that I work with are older folk who get their news primarily from the NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, and love such programs as The Today Show and 60 Minutes.

Hugh Hewitt often has journalists appear on his radio program. One of the questions he likes to pose to them is "What political party are you registered with? Who'd you vote for in the last election?" It is interesting how all of them seem to cling to this "false tradition", about how journalists don't and should not reveal their political affiliation, lest it influence the way readers perceive their column- as if the tone and rhetoric of their writing doesn't already reveal their partisanship. I agree with Hugh, that it would be more honest for writers to be required to reveal their political allegiance. It doesn't mean you can't write the straight news, in as nonpartisan a manner as possible.

Then you have "journalists in denial" who can't even see how their professionalism is colored by their partisanship:

"I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal till the day I die. That has nothing to do with whether or not this administration is telling the truth. Nor does it have anything to do with the way I presented my stories when I was a news reporter. When I was reporting news, as a person I never bowed out of the human race -- I felt my feelings and had my opinions about things, just as anyone does -- but it never got into my copy. I was never accused of slanting my copy."

Who said it? Why, the first lady of the White House Press Corps, Helen Thomas.

The Center for Media Public Affairs, yes a "nonpartisan" group, conducted a study that reveals 88% of the negative press went to the GOP; 77% of the good press went to the Dems. For anyone paying attention to MSM, how can you not see the bias?! Note from their study the following:

Three Dominant Storylines: Only three issues received more than sporadic coverage: the Mark Foley scandal, the Iraq war, and terrorism. The Foley scandal produced nearly as much coverage as the other two combined- 59 stories, compared to 33 on Iraq and 31 on terrorism/national security. No other issue was covered in more than six stories.

We are only as knowledgeable as our news sources. And when study after study reveals that MSM is populated by a majority of journalists who lean left of center and/or vote consistently for the Democrats, doesn't it make sense to seek out alternate news outlets? And in a time of war, when the news press is largely anti-war, distorting the overall picture and coverage, forgive me if I'm not more than a little bit pissed. The anti-war drumbeat of the media had a hand in Vietnam's end over 30 years ago, and they are trying to make the Iraq war into another Vietnam today, even though they are two entirely separate wars.

Hat tip: Woman Know Thyself for the BBC link

An Ol' Broad's Rambling for the link trail to al Qaeda's reaction to Rumsfeld's resignation.

Also blogging:

Rob at Flopping Aces

Don't forget to read "The Press at War". It a must-read, and I will probably include it again in tomorrow's post.

Also: Happy Birthday to the Marine Corps! A reminder of where the words, "...to the shores of Tripoli" comes from.