[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News ToutsDoubt and Dissent]

[David Willson]

Joe, don't you agree that eight minutes of softball from Peter Jennings
is a little unusual?  God doesn't forbid that the anti-war viewpoint be
heard.  In fact, no one does, here or elsewhere.  I agree that there are
people, me among them, that think y'all go a little too far, but
whatever...  Usually Jennings 'explores and challenges', right?  For him
to toss a question like the one you quoted is out-of-character.  That's
a coaching question, neither exploratory nor challenging.  It seems set
up specifically to provide an opportunity for platforming.  Now, again,
there's nothing wrong with providing the anti-Bush / anti-war gang an
opportunity to platform, but it's perfectly appropriate for the
'watchdog' to call him on it, too.

I wish I had more time...  There was a point raised days ago about how
many U.N. resolutions Israel has defied, and I really wanted to answer
it then, but there is just not enough time.  For now, let me say this:
There are four parties involved in the argument that was made, the U.S.,
the U.N., Saddam, and Israel.  Israel is a loyal political ally that has
defied orders from the U.N.  Saddam is a violent political enemy that
has defied U.S. backed orders from the U.N.  The orders which Saddamn
defied have a negative effect on our national security.  Someone is
going to argue that, so I'll explain:  We are ~this~ secure if we can
examine our enemy's capacity on a regular basis.  We are ~less~ secure
than we were if we lose that ability.  Moreover, we are ~this~ secure if
we have confidence that a policeman can order our enemy to do
such-and-so, and he will respond.  We are ~less~ secure if that is not
so.  By comparison, we are equally secure whether or not a friend
responds to the orders of a policeman.  Israel has never threatened this
nation.  I should have thought this math / logic would be obvious, but I
guess not.  I could argue also that if I and a criminal are in a
standoff, with our guns pointed at one another, and a policeman orders
us both to disarm while he looks away, I am quite likely to defy his
orders, because I will make the assumption that my criminal associate
will do so, and I prefer not to be shot.  Does that make me a criminal?
You might say so, and I might disagree, and both our viewpoints would be
valid.

Last stop, Vietnam.  Have any of you been in a fist-fight, or played a
strategic computer-game, or any sort of wargame?  If there are two
people/countries that are threats to you, do you fight both of them
simultaneously, or do you swat one of them and hope that the other
leaves you alone until the one you started with is dead?  If you usually
win these sorts of games you know that the only way to do handle threats
is one at a time, unless there is no other choice, and when there is no
other choice, your tactics must be a LOT more brutal, if you are to have
a hope of winning.  By contentrating our resources on the war with Iraq,
and temporarily ignoring Vietnam, we buy the ability to be 'surgical'
and the ability to spend resources on rehabilitating Iraq.  If we fight
both at the same time, rehabilitation will no longer be an option, all
our resources will go toward disabling the threats.  Yes, I understand
that war is not a wargame or a common fist-fight, but as far as I have
been able to determine, the strategies that work are remarkably similar.

-----Original Message-----

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 21:00, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> MRC doesn't deliver news. They are only acting as watchdogs.

Watchdogs? That's about the most laughable thing I've heard all day,
thanks. What they're doing is nitpicking the news for anything that
doesn't agree with the conservative viewpoint. 

Note that they're not pointing out factual errors -- they're just taking
digs at anyone that dares to go counter to the conservative viewpoint.

Here's an interesting snippet: 

Previewing new protests, he insisted that anti-war activists represented
more than the tiny fraction of the country that shares their views: 

"Tiny fraction?" Last I checked, polls were indicating at least 30
percent of the population thinks we're doing the wrong thing - that's a
"tiny fraction?" I pity anyone taking guidance from people who don't
recognize 30 percent of the population as a significant portion. 

> I cannot think
> of a time when they were wrong, can you?

Try harder. The whole premise of the site is the so-called liberal
bias... which is a crock to begin with. 

Here's an example of the so-called "bias" that MRC drummed up from ABC's
war coverage:

"Jennings spent much of Friday night's coverage doing his part to make
sure the anti-war side was heard, including an eight-minute interview
with two far-left leaders of anti-war groups in which Jennings tossed
softball questions such as, "Why do you feel so strongly about this
war?"

(http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030324.asp)

Yes, God forbid that the anti-war viewpoint be heard!

I could probably spend the better part of a week picking apart the
so-called "watchdog" commentary from the MRC, which basically boils down
to this: We're going to whine about any media coverage that doesn't
strictly agree with our viewpoint. 

> If all they are doing is
> highlighting when liberal talking heads choose to do some 
> editorializing when they should be reporting, what's the problem?

Problem? There's no problem unless you take them seriously. Kind of like
Rush Limbaugh, it might make good entertainment -- but if you're using
that as a source of news or facts, you're in deep trouble. 

Unlike the right-wingers, I don't have a problem with people exercising
free speech -- even when they like to twist the facts as much as these
folks. I won't call them traitors or cast aspersions on their patriotism
even though they're doing their level best to silence dissent that is
constitutionally protected. But, I'm just as free to call them on their
bias as they are to spew it. So...you can pretty much expect me to play
"watchdog" whenever Kevin feels the need to pollute the CLUE-talk list
with trash from MRC. 

> Of course they are biased
> (I'm sure they only discuss *liberal* editorializing - I doubt they 
> say much about Fox putting some conservative spin on reports, but 
> there are similar groups for that for the flip side: FAIR comes to 
> mind.), but so is the mainstream media.

As far as the war goes, I'd say that the media is displaying a strong
bias to the right -- not the left -- or they'd be a great deal more
critical about the war with Iraq.

As far as social issues go, the media can skew to the left -- issues
like abortion, for example. As far as economic issues, the media skews
strongly to the right - and little wonder, given the fact that most
media outlets are owned by large corporations. 

Here's an example of real media bias at work: Clear Channel sponsoring
pro-war demonstrations: 

Area war boosters honk, holler for flag
http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~1263106,00.html

The event's sponsor, Clear Channel, gave away 200 T-shirts with the
words, "I Support President Bush,' printed on the back.

Clear Channel sponsored pro-war demonstrations in several cities.
Incidently, the company happens to own 1,233 radio stations across the
U.S. Gee, I wonder if their listeners are getting the full scoop on the
war? Somehow, I doubt that coverage that might be considered skeptical
of the Bush administration is being encouraged. 

Now...why isn't MRC pointing out the obvious conflict of interest in a
media company sponsoring pro-war rallies? They're obviously pleased as
long as the bias is strictly pro-conservative. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net

_______________________________________________
CLUE-Talk mailing list
CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk