You had to know it wouldn't be long…
If you had the unfortunate experience of watching network news broadcasts earlier this month (Nov. 17th, 18th or so), you will remember the news-readers (aka anchors) scrambling to cover as much of Sen. Murtha's anti-war, anti-Bush comments as they could. Nearly every network led with the story, describing Murtha as a patriot, a Vietnam war hero, and a long-standing expert on military policy in congress. The "reporters" hung on his every word, editorializing about the shockwave this would send through the U.S. and wondering how the Bush administration could go on with such strong criticisms from such an honorable, qualified source.
If you haven't picked up the theme here, they presented the story through their strongly liberal, anti-Bush bias. Rather than reporting just the story, they felt compelled to spin it even further toward the left. Even the selection of this as a leading story, and the amount of time devoted to it shows this.
But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they report every story this way. What if a John McCain or Chuck Hagel got up and said the war was going well, that our troops were accomplishing the mission they were sent to accomplish, and that the world is a better place because of the heroicism of the U.S. military? Such a story would warrant equal air time and attention, right?
Not according to the networks. Joe Lieberman, a moderate democrat, just got back from Iraq. In an OpEd piece published in the Wall Street Journal on the 29th (available
More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood–unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
He goes on to list specific and plentiful examples of the progress in Iraq. Further on, he writes:
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years.
So, how did the networks handle this story? ABC and CBS ignored it completely, choosing rather to focus on snowstorms in the Midwest and a look back at Hurricane Katrina. NBC mentioned it briefly, including a soundbite from Lieberman. This was followed by a story about protesters (about 100!!! of them) outside of a fundraiser in Denver featuring the President. This information can be found on the Media Research Center's website.
Why does this matter? We are on the brink of an overwhelming victory in Iraq. The troops that are there know it. The Iraqis themselves know it. And, obviously, the small (but highly visible in the media) group of terrorists know it. That is why they continue to fight. Yet, the media continues to blast the president, undermine the troops, and negatively influence the opinions of the American populace.
As a result, there is a perceived "outcry" from Americans everywhere asking their leaders to withdraw from Iraq immediately, thus seizing "defeat from the jaws of the coming victory," to quote Lieberman again.
Here is the pattern, which the networks have rarely deviated from:
- The networks report the most dreary, pessimistic stories they can find. Try and think of a nightly newscast you've seen where they didn't report a "body count" or the number of U.S. troops killed that day.
- They conduct a poll to measure Americans' opinion of the president and the war, typically using leading/biased questions that point to the answers they want.
- They report their findings from their polls, declaring that such-and-such percent of Americans disapprove of the war and such-and-such percent of Americans disapprove of the president.
Does anyone else see the problem here? What if I told a group of 10 people that tomatoes may be poisonous. Next, I asked them the following question: "Tomatoes are considered by some to be poisonous. Do you think it's possible that tomatoes may cause health problems in some people?" Finally, I would report my findings back to the group, telling them that a majority of those surveyed believed that tomatoes were poisonous. By ignoring the positive nutritional aspects of tomatoes, presenting the unqualified opinions of "somebody out there" as facts, and then asking a biased question, I have effectively created the very story I am reporting as "news."
And so it is with the network news. They report only the problems with the war (yes, there are some… it's WAR for crying out loud), and in an exaggerated way, quoting politically motivated sources. Then they ask people what they think (typically using biased questions). Finally, they report their findings as news, never once acknowledging that THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MADE THIS "NEWS" IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I hope that the American populace is able to see through this little parlor trick by the liberal news media. Finally, I hope that we are able to stay the course, maintain our courage, and accomplish the things we so desperately need to in the Middle East. If we do what we set out to do (with the consent of nearly everyone in the Senate, I might add), we will all be much better off. If we don't we will spend the next couple of centuries looking back and wondering why we didn't take care of this "problem" of radical Islamic extremist terrorism when we had the chance.
RSS 2.0
