I think we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of the mainstream media.
My reasoning? Compare the media’s reaction to the Nick Berg slaying with that of the people. So far the media has been trying to flog the dead horse of the Abu Ghraib prison scandals while minimizing Berg’s death as much as they can. Now that Berg’s father is speaking out against Bush (and making himself look like an ass in the process), expect the media to start slavishly covering his every word.
If that weren’t enough, InstaPundit links to a story that shows the absolute depravity of some members of the media:
The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.
She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.
But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.
She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.
What can be said of something like that. The media wants the US to fail. They put John Kerry becoming President over the lives of thousands of Iraqis. They’re doing whatever they can to make Iraq into a failure – another Vietnam in which victories on the battlefield are spun into defeats by the traitorous press.
It is sick, treasonous, reprehensible, and wrong to root against your own country for pissant political gain. Anyone who would willingly aid al-Qaeda’s propaganda war by spinning the facts against the United States out of hatred for Bush is a traitor. There’s simply no way around it. The media is deliberately using propaganda to distort the situation on the ground and offer aid and comfort to the enemy while our soldiers are dying. Thankfully not all members of the media engage in these activities, but far too many of them do.
We didn’t lose Vietnam by force of arms, we lost Vietnam because members of our own country lost their will to fight. We allowed people like John Kerry to convince us that if we let the North Vietnamese take over that nothing bad would happen. In 1971 Kerry appeared on the Dick Cavett show to tell the country that there would be no bloodshed if we left Vietnam.
Soon after, we did.
Over two million were slaughtered.
How many Iraqi lives would be lost if we repeated that mistake?
The American people are starting to wake up to this, which is why the ratings for network news has gone down while readership of blogs has gone up. If I want to know what’s going on in Iraq, I can get around a dozen opinions from the Iraqis themselves. I can see what individual soldiers are seeing. I can gather information from any number of sources almost instantaneously, allowing me to do the kind of fact-checking the media seems entirely disinterested in covering.
With all that, who the hell needs Dan Rather telling us what to think?