Jun 23 2008

News Organizations Conspire To Influence US Elections

Published by at 11:06 am under All General Discussions

One thing the news media cannot do is conspire to help one party or one candidate win elected office over another candidate by tilting the news it provides America (and its paying customers).  One person’s bias can be seen as an anomaly, but orchestrated actions is a crime – whether coordinated with the party/candidate or not.  Today the NY Times reports on a clear conspiracy to hide news from the American people, news critical in determining the best path forward for all of us as we have our national elections this fall:

Getting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News.

Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.

“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.

By telephone from Baghdad, Mr. McCarthy said he was not as busy as he was a year ago. A decline in the relative amount of violence “is taking the urgency out” of some of the coverage, he said. Still, he gets on ABC’s “World News” and other programs with stories, including one on Friday about American gains in northern Iraq.

It is not America’s fault these fools when so far out on their defeatism-limb last year and predicted endless fighting an no hope for Iraq.  That is THEIR mistake – not George Bush’s or anyone else’s.  For a bunch of nagging fools who claim others must admit their mistakes they clearly live in some serious glass-houses.

But what gets me is the coordinated act of suppressing the news.  We are talking about a 90% drop off in news from Iraq since events started to go well there and dispel the erroneous speculation of the SurrenderMedia and their political masters – the Surrendercrats.  It is no accident all three major networks (and all major liberal print news sources I would wager) have tried to cover up what is happening in Iraq.  Clearly this industry wide conspiracy is not coincidence – how could it be?  

How could success in Iraq not be interesting?  How could it not be fascinating to see such a huge turn around in the fate of a nation? How could in not be uplifting to see moderate Arab Muslims become so repulsed by al-Qaeda as to take up arms against the Islamo Fascists and ally with the US?  How could one of this nations most amazing military successes not be news?   

Of course, that requires the news organization to present the information in its proper context.  If you downplay the winner of the Super Bowl as boring and predictable, with no excitement America tunes out and advertising dollars shrink.  If you promote the same game with in a positive light, noting the hard fought seasons and close calls, and promoting the individual accomplishments you get exciting entertainment.

I am not equating a war with a national past-time, I am just noting if you tilt the content sufficiently you can make a great achievement appear to be nothing of interest, and the viewing audience levels show this to be true.  

Knowing that it only requires squelching the good news and bringing lesser stories to the forefront (you know, where people are not dying and the future of the world’s security is not at risk) will taint and bias the impression of a news story is not news to news organizations.  They know how manipulation of the information flow works – they have a myriad of mechanisms and processes in place to stop an individual from doing just that kind of ‘reporting’.  But who watches the ones who select the news that is aired?  Who monitors those who can, with malice and forethought, hide news from America in order to bias their perspective?

Hiding news of wrong doing is typically where we see cover ups.  But in this case the cover up was over the SurrenderMedia’s predictions of failure in Iraq.  As long as Iraq was unfolding the way they and the Democrats wanted they reported.  That included stories and reports including some serious charges against, and impugning the character of, one General David Petraeus when he went to Congress last September to report on the initial stages of what has been a sweeping success.  The news organizations had no problem reporting on wild speculation with little basis in fact, or the character assassination of one of our nation’s best and brightest.  But they cannot find it in themselves to report on our nation’s greatest success?

Please, this was a cover up for the past sins of the Democrats and the News Media.  And the reason it needs to be covered up is those mistakes are so serious and so grievous that they would impact the nation’s views of the Democrats in this fall’s elections.  Well, that is the reality that should be reported: the left speculated wildly about defeat in Iraq, promised it was coming, demeaned those who had faith in our country and our people, and were in the end dead wrong.  That is the story.  That is what is being covered up.

It is not just that Iraq is a success that is being covered up.  That would be unprofessional and immature, not border line criminal. But the real problem is the success we see in Iraq exposed serious poor judgement in many people, both inside the media and those in the Democrat Party who the media politically align with. That turns this action from repulsive to criminal. The news from Iraq is being suppressed to influence our elections, to give aid and cover to the party preferred by the news media (a connection which has been proven in poll after poll  for many years).  The fact that all liberal news media outlets have been pushing unbalanced news which clearly benefits one party over another is not coincidence.  

And that is probably one of the biggest stories not being told, because it would require the news media to take a hard look at itself and its unprofessional (probably illegal) actions.  One thing this country needs ‘change’ in is the biased and crooked reporting of information.  And we can do that without elections.  All we need to do is chose our news sources based on their performance, accuracy, fairness and ability to face their mistakes.

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “News Organizations Conspire To Influence US Elections”

  1. Ugg How depressing.

  2. Neo says:

    Tom Friedman in the NYT

    What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

    This is going to be hard to ignore.