<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2006-12-22

Media Hits and Misses . . .

as in "hit pieces" and "mis-representations"

This one falls in the latter category.

From ABC News (via Hugh Hewitt):

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

So, how can ABC reporting this constitute a "miss?" you might be asking.

Because the ABC webite is the only major media reporting this, as near as I can tell. I watched three news broadcasts tonight (I know--the lengths I go to for the blog): our usual 4 o'clock news (news lite), the 5:30 NBC national news broadcast, and the 10 o'clock news FROM THE ABC AFFILIATE here in Denver. I figured one of these would at least mention this story, especially the ABC affiliate.

Nope. Not a whisper.

I'll accept that the big story locally is the two feet of snow we got in the last 36 hours--fine. But our little trip around the world news on all three broadcasts had stories about the new SecDef in Iraq, and the 8 Marines charged in the killings in Iraq, but not whisper about what should be a major story. And has the potential to be THE major story of the next two weeks.

Dean Barnett made this argument two days ago:

People like me, people who understood what Rumsfeld was getting at and never lost the heart of it – we’ve lost the war of ideas.

I think we HAVE lost the war of ideas. The problem is, we have been painfully--blindingly--slow to recognize who the enemy is in this war of ideas [I use the word "enemy" advisedly--speaking strictly(!) about the war of ideas]: the media.

The media has wilfully, systematically, and tyrannically buried evidence that might have brought to light arguments to help those of us on this side of the war of ideas. Think hard: name the man who shot up the Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX a few years back; name the man who shot up a mosque in Seattle; name the man who drove into a crowded sidewalk in the upper midwest last year (I think it was Minnesota, but my memory could be wrong). You can't can you?

Neither can I.

But I can tell you that, from the early reports of each incident, the men were Muslim.

If each incident had been performed by an Evangelical, don't you think you would know their names? Don't you think you would have been treated to stories about "what's wrong with the Christians?"

But not when it involves a Muslim. No, we don't even get coverage of the actual text of some of the rantings of Ahmedinijad, much less coverage of the "anti-Holocaust Symposium" he hosted last weekend.

The media has blinded the public to the threat; in a war, if you can't see the enemy, it's hard to know they're your enemy.

And the media has made damn sure that you haven't seen the enemy for five years now.

I wonder what they'll say about the people who pull off the Christmas Bombings in London, 2006? That they were all young men from England?

And, by the way, what do you suppose the odds are that MI5 has lost track of the 18 men because they are no longer in London? 18 suicide bombers could wreak a lot of havoc on the second busiest shopping day of the year.
Posted by: Michael / 12/22/2006 12:15:00 AM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?