The media does WWIII (almost)

Articles in this Topic Discussions in this Topic

Sep 21, 2001

So "WWIII" is too extreme? What else would you call it when media pundits of all stripes write "news" everywhere literally telling President Bush how to conduct "the war" against Afghanistan? What else do you call it when folks like the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt got on Bush's case for not getting back to the White House ASAP after the terror attacks, Mary McGrory telling us Bush hasn't a clue in the Washington Post, and Chris Matthews telling us Bush's "day One" image needed to be eradicated in the SF Examiner? (Read: "http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_...") These are all respected commentators and not necessarily Clinton-Gore lovers, but why do they think they get to tell our "Commander-in-Chief" how to run the "war"? These folks, and seemingly everyone else in the establishment media, as well as the "neocon" organs ("http://www.townhall.com/" and "http://www.frontpagemag.com", for instance), and the "alternatives" like WorldNetDaily, the Drudge Report and NewsMax, for instance...nearly all news sites calling for "war" on Afghanistan (naturally, without considering the consequences--for it won't be them who will bear the brunt of the next round of retaliatory attacks by bin Laden's crew, who thinks nothing of self-sacrifice to destroy the US!). To verify this, see the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website at "http://www.fair.org/".

And will these news organs participate in any attempt to quash freedom of speech? Don Feder, a neocon, in an article on Wednesday, Sept. 19 WorldNetDaily ("http://wnd.com") thinks only "conspiracy theorists" conclude that our government will put a damper on the First Amendment--well, I got news for you, Don, our Congress is fixing to do just that. The Senate has already passed a measure to regulate what goes on the Internet (Read, "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art..." and "http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,128..." [Senate goes for Internet spying article]), and some are already concerned about general freedom to speak out against what could be a gross misadventure in Afghanistan (read: "http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer..."). After all, we are already in the US retaliating against the average Arab-American: two "Arab-Americans" (one was actually a Sikh!) have already been murdered by "hate criminals", many mosques and Arab groups have been attacked (as I said would happen in last week's article) by angry types, and Arab-Americans are afraid to leave their homes--God (Allah?) help a few brave ones who speak out against the impending war.

Back to the media: who are they to think that Mr. Bush has to tell them everything that is being planned in the coming "war" on terrorism? I know they have a "right to know" (which, as I have said in nearly every column I have written here, they very often deny to us consumers), but Bush and the military doesn't have to tell them anything if our leaders think it will hurt their efforts and breach security.

Go To Page: 1 2

The copyright of the article The media does WWIII (almost) in Media Issues is owned by . Permission to republish The media does WWIII (almost) in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.