|
|
December 30, 2006A new low in broadcast journalism? - UPDATEDEd Morrissey has the tape and the right response. We’ve known for a while that journalists have lost the ability to make fine distinctions. Now, some of them can’t make broad one’s either? Someone wrote to me last night that Anderson Cooper had done a really good job - that he was forceful in reminding viewers that without coalition troops Saddam would still be in power. The writer gave props to Cooper saying (I’m paraphrasing, from memory) “this execution and what it means for Iraq is bigger than hating Bush…” Cooper, he said, understood that. Some others, apparently do not. Some commenters at CQ wonder if this was a cold reading on the anchor’s part, or if he wrote the copy himself. Good question. Seems to me though, that if you can think fast on your feet, even if you see the word “assassination” coming at you, and you know it should be “execution” or even “death” you should be able to catch it. But I could be wrong. Some J-school grad can hopefully clue me in. But Ed basically gives thumbs down to much of the coverage of Saddam’s death…and his life, too. He writes here: It wasn’t just the execution coverage that was a joke; it was the entire coverage of Saddam Hussein, going back to Eason Jordan’s deal with the devil that kept their Baghdad bureau open. The last 24 hours just confirms their soullessness. (via Memeorandum). Me? I think when you can’t get on the same page about whether whether an execution is an assassination, then partisans have moved way beyond talking past each other and have decided to simply embrace “alternate realities”…which is what the dictatorship of relativism brings you to, eventually. What was it Chesterton said…something about…”if you believe in nothing, you can make yourself believe anything.” Also, I think the Newsbusters folks are not understanding Dennis Miller’s excellent snark, here. He said: He makes a valid point: A Democrat president could get away with all the stuff President Bush has done, is doing and wants to do to fight Islamofascism, because the (89% Registered Democrat) press will work for that president, instead of against him…or her. Come on, now…do you really think the NY Times would have done the Plame dance, or leaked the NSA and SWIFTBANKS stories if a Democrat had been leading the charge? Quite the contrary…if a President Clinton, Gore or Kerry had taken on this fight, appreciably weakened AlQ, gotten Libya to give up their WMD, nailed Hussein and helped Iraq become sovereign, AND kept the economy running at full steam, the press would be urging the purchase of TNT for an additional head on Mt. Rushmore. They’d be toasting the “humanitarian president” who freed women from oppression and helped shape the middle east into a democracy, etc, etc, etc…hell…they’d be endorsing oil drilling in ANWR. So maybe Miller is right…but now…how do we find a Democrat we can really, really trust to sincerely want to fight Islamofascism. You know, someone who MEANS it. And who the press hasn’t turned on, like Joe Lieberman… http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/12/30/a-new-low-in-broadcast-journalism/trackback/ 9 Responses to “A new low in broadcast journalism? - UPDATED” |
December 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Saddam Hussein Is Dead
Will I cheer his death? No. And I’ll give his suffering as much consideration as he showed his many victims. None.
I wonder if CBS broke into its regular programming to announce Saddam’s death, something its executives couldn’t bring themselves …
December 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Cooper did a good job.
He’s come a long way since Katrina. Criticism of him was warranted then and it seems he took it to heart.
I’ll give credit where credit is due, anytime.
December 30th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
As I recall the Chesterton quote: “He who beleives in nothing will fall for anything.”
December 30th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Actually Madame I have been thinking a bit about a future Democratic administration and the GWOT! All I hear is contempt and ridicule for the colored “terror alert” and of course Bush gets NO CREDIT for the fact that there has been no terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Anyone want to bet that as we get closer to the election of 2012 and the re election campaign of President (H. Clinton, Obama, Edwards whoever) D we will see a daily chart in USA Today or the NEw York Times commemerating “how many days we have been without a terror attack” since ____________ has been President” every single day?
December 30th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“dictatorship of relativism”
Well said…
I know it may seem obsessive to reference the 1990s and Clintonia, but this is when we seemed to encounter the most obscene dishonesty in much of the MSM.
Of course, years prior the slant existed, but the intentional misrepresentation in such a bold manner was never this bizarre.
simply distorted or demented.
Certainly some may believe in the fraud, but today’s democrat partisan, especially those in the media, seems to have embraced the Clinton love of lie, believing it works.
I did enjoy Mr. Miller’s effort…
But was quick to suggest to another blogger, who posted the Miller video, that we have experienced the Media working unethically on behalf of a Democrat Administration.
Unfortunately, during those 1990s, they were only interested in hiding the inept, corrupt, malfeasant, efforts of the Clintons.
In fact, I will never forget, the silence as the Clinton’s made it their policy to lie about the genocide in Rwanda.
Where were those intense questions from Mr. Russert? Gregory? Mitchell? Couric?
How can a Nation determine what is sound policy for it’s future, if it is flooded with endless disinformation?
Why is objective information too much to ask for, from various establishments presenting themselves as ‘news’ sources?
It is truly pathetic…
December 30th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
PS: to be simple, i don’t believe you will find a Democrat interested in fighting the GWOT.
I just don’t see it, even with mighty JOE.
The Clintons had 8 years, and after the WTC attack in 1993, they built Gorelick Walls, turned down Osama, did absolutely nothing but lie, etc..
The Media will simply diminish the threats of the Radical Muslim Militants around the globe, to make the Democrat in the WH look good, while the ingored danger grows again.
And perhaps, we will pay for the neglect even worse than 9-11.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:31 am
Wow! Thanks for the comments – and extra thanks for the huge number of links.
God bless and Merry Christmas.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Draining the Swamp
The Hill is reporting that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has taken responsibility for a series of ethics violations involving his most recent campaign…
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
[...] A NEW LOW in broadcast journalism? …. (theanchoressonline) [...]