|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
There should be some alternative to propaganda war reporting.
Maybe the public should elect their war reporters based on existing bodies of work.
No more Chomskys or Robertsons with cameras and pens.
Objective, yes. Hysterical, no. Impossible, probably.....
|
powerclown, your sentiments match uncannily the message of the most prominent conservative propagandist of the last 15 years....why do you suppose that is ????
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that <b>90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center.</b>
The Future is Bright
Why should conservatives be optimistic about the media? Because our future is bright, but only if we take advantage of it......
.8) Help train the next generation. It is rather meaningless to demand that the media balance their programming by including conservative voices if we don't have a stable of journalists prepared to enter the work force. They certainly will not come out of the major journalism school which, studies show, are even more liberal than what we have at present.....
<h3>.....Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."</h3>
The news and entertainment media will continue to effect the cultural health of America. If we succeed in our mission to restore political balance to this institution, future generations win benefit and thank us. It's worth fighting for, now.
L. Brent Bozell, III is Chairman of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.
|
powerclown, compared to the folks who he mocks and insults in the following column what point was Bozell correct about, compared to the accuracy of the opinions of those he disagreed with?
How much money do you suppose that Saddam spent on WMD from the start of the UN sanctions after the 1991 Gulf war until the US invaded Iraq in 2003?
Quote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20030227.asp
Hollywood's Geopolitical Geniuses
by L. Brent Bozell III
February 27, 2003
The United States is on the brink of war with Iraq. As Saddam Hussein begins to brace for the whirlwind, he's got few weapons left. One of them is very predictable: Hollywood.
A group called "Artists United to Win Without War" planned a "virtual march" on Washington for February 26, an electric blitz of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails calling for delay, delay, delay - the complete set of Tariq Aziz talking points.
But wait a minute. Just how can one take these "artists" seriously when they give themselves a name like that? Just how does one "win without war"? We accomplished zilch-o with U.N. “enforcement.” Now we’re going to “win” by giving in to more of the same. Kumbaya.
To get the Hollywood campaign going, the "artists" put out 30-second TV ads featuring…themselves. Martin Sheen, NBC's fake president, declares "Don't invade Iraq…Inspections work. War won't." The ad does not include a laugh track. In a different ad campaign, sour-pussed “comedian” Janeane Garofalo informs viewers of a U.N. estimate of half a million casualties "if we invade Iraq." She asks, "Do we have the right to do that to a country that's done nothing to us?"
Celebrity Garofalo has been on news channels everywhere decrying how news channels only want to talk to celebrities instead of real experts. If only she had the decency to abide by her own argument and shut up! Hollywood plasters itself all over the public policy debate and after being picked up by news media, then they slam the press for being shallow.
They’re right.
As the Iraq threat grows more serious, these cultural ambassadors just get sillier. On last week's Sunday "news" shows, while NBC poked at an actual acid-flashback sixties retread, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, CBS and Fox sank into silliness by inviting on celebrity Iraq "experts." Can you imagine being one of the roughly 500 members of Congress who never get invited? If you want to match furrowed brows with Bob Schieffer, it would have been smarter to work first on the sets of "M*A*S*H," or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."
CBS matched savvy National Review editor Rich Lowry with radical-left actors Mike Farrell and Susan Sarandon. This is one week where liberals might have complained about the imbalance to the right, one conservative heavyweight and two leftist lightweights. It was painful to watch, and we were all in trouble when Schieffer began his interview with Farrell by chatting like a smitten fan about how much he loved him as "the other doctor" on "M*A*S*H." I loved that show, too, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to stomp on Farrell's wacky political agenda.
On "Fox News Sunday," Tony Snow was wading warily through the gaseous fog that is Janeane Garofalo's mind. This woman makes Joe Biden look sophisticated. It's apparently riveting TV to match geopolitical wits with the star of "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" as she talks about "Operation Desert Fox." Maybe she’s seen James Mason play Nazi Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in the 1951 movie "Desert Fox." Or maybe she was just thinking about appearing on Fox. Maybe she is a fox. I don’t know.
In yet another appearance on MSNBC, host Mike Barnicle asked Garofalo who was more dangerous, Saddam or President Bush. She claimed "they are both very threatening to world peace and to deny that is to be incredibly naive." Really? Well, sure. “There has been a war on the people of Iraq since 1990. The plan to go into Iraq for hegemony over the region has been in play for a very long time and the ideologues in this administration want to go in."
Spare us. Garofalo here is merely chanting <h3>the mantras of America-loathing crackpots like Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, who spent the 1990s blaming the United States for starving Iraqi children with an embargo, even as Saddam Hussein made food unavailable to his people while he loaded up on weapons manufacturing.</h3>
Giving these "artists" a little room to rant quickly reveals the lie behind their campaign's claim to be a "mainstream voice" for "patriotic Americans." Anyone taking the "artists" seriously must be prepared to deny the truth that the Sheen-Garofalo-Farrell-Sarandon crowd represent a hard-left fringe, decidedly outside the American mainstream on war and peace, and nearly everything else.
I believe the challenges we face are too serious to play jokes on the American people. But then I consider that on the brink of war, we deserve a few laughs to ease the pressure. So I look forward to the next Garofalo interview.
|
Is the "Robertson" who you referred to in your post, the same CNN "demon" who Bozell is attacking in the following column?
Quote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20061025.asp
CNN, Stenographer to Terror
by L. Brent Bozell III
October 25, 2006
Our news media have long lectured us that their role is not to be “stenographers to power.” Theirs is the pursuit of truth, we are told. But when it comes to networks like CNN, those ethical rules are crumpled and tossed into the nearest trash bin.
Editorial writers at the Washington Post and elsewhere have raged against the Pentagon placing positive stories in Iraqi newspapers, thus violating the journalistic sacristy of objectivity. But they have no rage at all for CNN placing glorifying publicity from terrorists on a global television network.
On the October 18 edition of “Anderson Cooper 360,” CNN aired a story by reporter Michael Ware, an Australian correspondent renowned for his contacts with terrorist groups. The story showed video filmed by terrorists calling themselves the Islamic Army of Iraq. From the very start, the viewer sees this for what it is: enemy propaganda. The grainy video shows Islamic terrorist snipers time and again shooting and presumably killing American boys.
(CNN, bless its heart, cut the footage just before each bullet found its mark, but not before the sound of the rifle fire that launched it.)
Here’s what CNN also aired, without editorial comment of any sort, as “news”: The translator has the terrorists saying they should wait to shoot the American soldier, since there are innocent “people” around. Later in the report, the shooter claims to be trying to target an American soldier, not Iraqis. Since when have these insurgent murderers cared about killing Iraqi soldiers or civilians? They’ve massacred thousands with remorseless regularity.
The video is sickening. Imagine being the mother or father, sister, brother, wife or child of that American soldier murdered so brutally.
So why did CNN air something that cannot be defended as newsworthy? That video was given to CNN by terrorists in order to demoralize the American people about the hopelessness of Iraq just before midterm elections. And CNN did exactly what the terrorists wanted, and CNN knows it. In his introduction that night, Anderson Cooper said, “insurgents” – never terrorists, mind you, always “insurgents” – were “delivering a deadly message, aiming for a global audience.” CNN is the terrorist’s messenger service, FedEx for the fanatics who want us dead.
It’s part of a long and increasingly shameful history. CNN first came to prominence as a tyrant’s bootlicker in the first Gulf War in 1991, when the network agreed to allow Saddam Hussein to edit its reports in return for preferential access in Baghdad. Once entrenched, the perpetually embarrassing Peter Arnett reported on the Allied bombing of baby-milk factories – that weren’t baby-milk factories. CNN didn’t fire Arnett. They retained him even after his atrocious 1998 CNN-Time documentary asserting that Americans gassed their own soldiers in Laos, another story that fell apart under scrutiny. Sense a trend? CNN seems eager to pounce on stories that make Americans look evil and/or lethally incompetent. Whether they are true is irrelevant.
The story of evil in a foreign land was easily crumpled by CNN in a slavish desire for access. In April 2003, days after Saddam Hussein fell, CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times admitting he had scrapped stories from Iraq out of fear of violence from Saddam’s regime. He struggled to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open, but couldn’t seem to report vital news, even news that his own producers were subjected to electroshock torture. His career at CNN didn’t end until he recklessly claimed American soldiers were targeting reporters for assassination in Iraq.
This isn’t even the first occasion of CNN being used as a terrorist sock puppet this year. <b>In July, CNN’s Nic Robertson traveled into a heavily damaged Beirut, Lebanon neighborhood</b> to decry Israel for bombing civilian areas. It also transpired that all along, he was being escorted by and taking instructions from the terrorist organization Hezbollah. The Hezbollah “press officer” even instructed the CNN camera: “Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?” Robertson later claimed Hezbollah had “very, very sophisticated” press operations and the terrorist group “had control of the situation.” Hezbollah had control of CNN.
It’s also not the first terrorist video distributed by Michael Ware. In 2004, when Ware was a Time reporter, he was handed an insurgent videotape of the killing of American contractors in Fallujah. Ware confessed, like Robertson, to losing control of the situation with terrorists: “I certainly go out there and expose myself. I've been to the safe houses. I surrender myself to their control. I've sat in living rooms face-to-face with these men," he said.
He surrenders himself to terrorist control. This from the man who works for CNN – the network whose role is not to be a “stenographer to power.”
|
|