How can the MSM be blindsided by the same Iraqis they’ve been preoccupied with for two years?
Charles Krauthammer begins his piece by quoting the New York Times:
Gee, he's right! The same MSM that had focused like a laser-beam on these same Iraqis for the last two years were totally blindsided by the object of their preoccupation. Just like they were in Nicaragua. How do you suppose they managed to do that? How could such a thing be possible?
When anyone receives—or barely avoids—being injured by another they need to assess whether the incident was the result of an accident or an attack. Put another way, they have to ask themselves the question: “Am I the victim of malice or stupidity?”
If the incident was unintentional then other party will claim is “it was an accident.” Of course all attackers attempt to avoid retribution by also pleading “it was an accident”.
A wise victim knows that they probably will not be able to workout actual intent by simply listening to the other party because they will lie if they are guilty of malice.
So what to do? A better means for ascertaining the other party’s intentions is to know something about their history: Does their behavior reoccur too often to be accepted as “just an accident”?
Krauthammer pointed out that the MSM’s history included being “surprised” by the outcome of the Nicaraguan. I would like to point out that the same media was chanting quagmire before the war in Afghanistan—which lasted a whole three weeks—had even started.
A casual observer would note that the MSM’s history shows chronically negative—and chronically inaccurate—reporting of one particular subject: U.S. efforts to oppose tyranny. In every case this reporting would lead the MSM’s audience to conclude that the U.S.’ efforts were doomed.
This sort of “reporting”, coincidently, would have the effect of undermining political support for such efforts. In almost every case—Vietnam being a notable exception—the MSM was not only wrong but was spectacularly repudiated by the very people who they ware falsifying news reports about.
Ya know, it just makes you wonder, might they have been just as wrong about South Vietnam? Just asking. And if so, that is, if their negative reporting in Vietnam was just as defective as their reporting in Nicaragua and Iraq then does that mean that they contributed to the Stalinist enslavement of the entire country of South Vietnam? Just asking. And if so, does this mean that the MSM was a pro-al Qaeda death squad, pro-Islamofascist, pro-Baathist force in today’s Iraq—just like they were a pro-Stalinist force during Vietnam War?
What would the world’s anti-Democratic, anti-American brigands do without the MSM? I guess they would have to invent it. I mean it wouldn’t be a fair fight unless these thugs could be protected and supported by their natural ally, MSM.
And what should the Iraqi people conclude regarding the MSM’s consistently incorrect reports that they were unready to vote and that the al Qaeda death squad’s efforts should be rewarded by postponing the election? Why they should conclude that they were the victims of malice, not stupidity, of course.
He then quotes an associate who observed:"At polling centers hit by explosions, survivors refused to go home, steadfastly waiting to cast their votes as policemen swept away bits of flesh.''
-- New York Times, Feb. 2, on the Iraqi election.
The media have not been as surprised, noted a friend of mine, since the Nicaraguans turned out in their 1990 election to kick out the Sandinistas.BU-WHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Gee, he's right! The same MSM that had focused like a laser-beam on these same Iraqis for the last two years were totally blindsided by the object of their preoccupation. Just like they were in Nicaragua. How do you suppose they managed to do that? How could such a thing be possible?
When anyone receives—or barely avoids—being injured by another they need to assess whether the incident was the result of an accident or an attack. Put another way, they have to ask themselves the question: “Am I the victim of malice or stupidity?”
If the incident was unintentional then other party will claim is “it was an accident.” Of course all attackers attempt to avoid retribution by also pleading “it was an accident”.
A wise victim knows that they probably will not be able to workout actual intent by simply listening to the other party because they will lie if they are guilty of malice.
So what to do? A better means for ascertaining the other party’s intentions is to know something about their history: Does their behavior reoccur too often to be accepted as “just an accident”?
Krauthammer pointed out that the MSM’s history included being “surprised” by the outcome of the Nicaraguan. I would like to point out that the same media was chanting quagmire before the war in Afghanistan—which lasted a whole three weeks—had even started.
A casual observer would note that the MSM’s history shows chronically negative—and chronically inaccurate—reporting of one particular subject: U.S. efforts to oppose tyranny. In every case this reporting would lead the MSM’s audience to conclude that the U.S.’ efforts were doomed.
This sort of “reporting”, coincidently, would have the effect of undermining political support for such efforts. In almost every case—Vietnam being a notable exception—the MSM was not only wrong but was spectacularly repudiated by the very people who they ware falsifying news reports about.
Ya know, it just makes you wonder, might they have been just as wrong about South Vietnam? Just asking. And if so, that is, if their negative reporting in Vietnam was just as defective as their reporting in Nicaragua and Iraq then does that mean that they contributed to the Stalinist enslavement of the entire country of South Vietnam? Just asking. And if so, does this mean that the MSM was a pro-al Qaeda death squad, pro-Islamofascist, pro-Baathist force in today’s Iraq—just like they were a pro-Stalinist force during Vietnam War?
What would the world’s anti-Democratic, anti-American brigands do without the MSM? I guess they would have to invent it. I mean it wouldn’t be a fair fight unless these thugs could be protected and supported by their natural ally, MSM.
And what should the Iraqi people conclude regarding the MSM’s consistently incorrect reports that they were unready to vote and that the al Qaeda death squad’s efforts should be rewarded by postponing the election? Why they should conclude that they were the victims of malice, not stupidity, of course.
posted by johnh | 7:41 AM
<< Home