skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Bill O'Reilly Tells His Umpteenth LieDespite extensive coverage of Medal of Honor ceremony by CNN and MSNBC, O'Reilly said they "are not going to report stories that reflect well on the American military"
Summary: Bill O'Reilly asserted that "some television news organizations ignored the Medal of Honor awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy"-- a Navy SEAL who was killed during a rescue mission in Afghanistan -- claiming that "CNN and MSNBC just said no to Lieutenant Michael Murphy" on their prime-time newscasts, finally concluding, "The hard truth is that MSNBC and CNN are not going to report stories that reflect well on the American military." In fact, though CNN and MSNBC did not cover the story during the 8-11 p.m. ET prime-time period, both provided extensive coverage of the Medal of Honor ceremony earlier in the day: MSNBC reported on Murphy at least five times, including carrying the award ceremony live, and CNN covered the Murphy story on at least seven
distinct occasions.
The media do not have a liberal bias. Conservatives even admit itThe Most Biased Name in News, Seth Ackerman, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, August 2001
"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of 'liberal bias' in the media were part of 'a strategy' (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: 'If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is "work the refs." Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.'"
The Liberal Media, RIP, Eric Alterman, The Nation, March 13, 2000
"Bill Kristol, perhaps the most honest and intelligent conservative in Washington (excluding, of course, that funny, friendly, charming McCain fellow). 'The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,' Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. 'I admit it,' Kristol told The New Yorker. 'The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.'"
Spinning Populism In American News Media, Norman Solomon, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, undated
"'The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,' [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: 'I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.'"
Who's On the News?: Study shows network news sources skew white, male & elite, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, June 2002:
"A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican."
Hugh Hewitt's ideological double standard for journalistsDuring an interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, right wing radio host Hugh Hewitt attacked the objectivity of MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, saying the "clowns" have "damaged" NBC "ideologically" because they "worked for two Democratic politicians close to twenty years ago." Later in the interview, however, Hewitt struck a very different tone when discussing Diane Sawyer's past employment for Richard Nixon:
I thought you were going to answer Diane Sawyer, because look, I know she knows what she's talking about, largely because I took over her office at Casa Pacifica when she left the Nixon staff, and I joined the Nixon staff. […]
And you don't spend years with Nixon at Casa Pacifica and not pick up how the world works, and how great minds think. My question is, I think she would dominate the news. I think she would be an extraordinary anchor in the form of Peter Jennings.
* If criminal minds are great minds then perhaps Nixon did have a great mind.
The Real Iraq We Knew The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq’s oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with “the surge,” we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents’ cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet — moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
Fox News Gibson: Whites commit suicide, blacks 'shoot and move on'A student in Cleveland yesterday shot four people at a high school before killing himself. On his radio show that day, Fox News's John Gibson claimed that he "could tell right away" that the shooter was white:
He killed himself. Hip-hoppers do not kill themselves. They walk away. Now, I didn't need to hear the kid was white with blond hair. Once he'd shot himself in the head, no hip-hopper. […]
And I could tell right away 'cause he killed himself. Black shooters don't do that; they shoot and move on.
From Military Disaster to Moral High GroundTHE "liberal hawks" are back. These, of course, are the politicians and pundits who threw in their lot with George W. Bush in 2003: voting and writing for a "preventive war" — a war of choice that would avenge 9/11, clean up Iraq, stifle Islamic terrorism, spread shock, awe and democracy across the Middle East and re-affirm the credentials of a benevolently interventionist America. For a while afterward, the president's liberal enablers fell silent, temporarily abashed by their complicity in the worst foreign policy error in American history. But gradually they are returning. And they are in a decidedly self-righteous mood.
Yes, they concede, President Bush messed up his (our) war. But even if the war was a mistake, it was a brave and good mistake and we were right to make it, just as we were right to advocate intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. ("The difference between Kosovo and Iraq isn't between a country that wanted peace and one that didn't," the Slate editor and onetime war cheerleader Jacob Weisberg, now tells us. "It was a matter of better management and better luck.") We were right to be wrong — and that's why you should listen to us now.
In addition, they say, we have the guts to call a spade a spade — to designate Muslim suicide-bombers "Islamic Fascists" (Paul Berman) and "Islamofascists" (Christopher Hitchens) — and to denounce Iranian demagogues as would-be Hitlers. We are the heirs, according to the former New Republic editor Peter Beinart, of the anti-totalitarian struggles of World War II and the cold war, and our battle against terrorism is the defining cause of the age.
We are going to hear much more in this vein in the coming months. And there is a new twist. For all its shortcomings, the Iraq war, we are now reminded, was "justified" (Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator) by its impeccable moral credentials. It was supported — and is still — by leading European intellectuals, notably former dissidents like Adam Michnik and Vaclav Havel. They understand evil and the need for America to take a stand. So do we. Our domestic critics simply don't "get it." They are appeasers and defeatists.
This is a seductive tale. But before it takes hold in the Democratic Party, here are some dissenting observations. First, we should not be so quick to wrap ourselves in the mantle of the pro-war Eastern European dissidents. The personal courage of these men is beyond question. Not so their political judgment.
Their common outlook was shaped by life under Communism and the need to choose between right and wrong, between good and evil — an uncompromising choice which they (like President Bush) subsequently projected on to the more complex realm of international relations. Vaclav Havel is now a co-chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger, a Washington lobby of ultra cold-warriors recycled as cheerleaders for the "global war on terrorism."
The case for liberal interventionism — "taking a stand" — had nothing whatever to do with the Iraq war. Those of us who pressed for American-led military action in Bosnia and Kosovo did so for several reasons: because of the refusal of others (the European Union and United Nations) to engage effectively; because there was a demonstrable and immediate threat to rights and lives; and because it was clear we could be effective in this way and in no other.
None of these considerations applied in Iraq, which is why I and many others opposed the war. However, it is true that United States military intervention in urgent cases will be much harder to justify and explain in future. But that, of course, is a consequence of the Iraq debacle.
Liberal hawks have been quick to swoop down on dovish critics of the American military — condemning in particular MoveOn.org's criticism of Gen. David Petraeus. Quickly, it has become conventional wisdom that liberals should never disparage the military.
But why not? Soldiers have to respect generals. Civilians don't. In a free society, it is a sign of robust civic health when generals are pilloried for getting into policy issues. Liberal Democrats should ask themselves whether, amid today's cult of military "heroes," a president would dare cashier a Douglas MacArthur for insubordination, as Harry Truman did in 1951 — and what our liberal hawks would say if he did.
Finally: In a democracy, war should always be the last resort — no matter how good the cause. "To jaw-jaw," as Churchill reminded Eisenhower, "is always better than to war-war." So the next time someone waxes lyrical for armed overseas intervention in the name of liberal ideals or "defining struggles," remember what Albert Camus had to say about his fellow intellectuals' propensity for encouraging violence to others at a safe distance from themselves. "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed," he wrote, "but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
From WMDs to Social Security: More Bush StoriesYou remember George W. Bush, the guy who tricked the country into a never-ending war in Iraq with stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to Osama bin Laden. Well, he still has 16 months left in the White House and he's determined to do yet more damage with his famous "Bush stories" before he leaves town.
The latest Bush story is the cry that Social Security is going bankrupt and will impose an unbearable burden on our children and grandchildren. Of course, this is not the first time President Bush has gone after Social Security. Immediately after the 2004 election, he tried to use his new political capital to privatize Social Security. As a result of a massive nationwide organizing campaign, the privatization drive soon hit a dead end.
But Bush is not through with Social Security. In an apparent effort to lay the groundwork for a future president to privatize and/or cut the program, the Treasury Department is circulating a new set of Bush stories designed to convince the public the Social Security program must be changed.
