Overwatch
I'd like to begin another new feature, one I'll call Overwatch. Actually, it's nothing all that new. I've taken a look at our wonderful mainstream media (MSM) on occasion before.
In this feature from time to time, I'll simply spotlight instances where the MSM doesn't, shall we say, quite live up to its task of informing the public in an objective manner, or, doesn't inform them at all.
This item is taken from the September 19, 2005 issue of the Weekly Standard, its 10th Anniversary issue.
The Scrapbook column describes an August 31 New York Times op-ed by Francis Fukuyama, in which Fukuyuma did provide some criticism of the Bush Administration for its policy in Iraq. (Fukuyama is no flaming liberal, by the way.)
However, as the Scrapbook says...
How does that old saying go? With media like these, who needs enemies...
In this feature from time to time, I'll simply spotlight instances where the MSM doesn't, shall we say, quite live up to its task of informing the public in an objective manner, or, doesn't inform them at all.
This item is taken from the September 19, 2005 issue of the Weekly Standard, its 10th Anniversary issue.
The Scrapbook column describes an August 31 New York Times op-ed by Francis Fukuyama, in which Fukuyuma did provide some criticism of the Bush Administration for its policy in Iraq. (Fukuyama is no flaming liberal, by the way.)
However, as the Scrapbook says...
But far more surprising was the Times's astonishing misrepresentation of Fukuyama's views. For the Times graced his op-ed with an incendiary "pull quote"--a quotation in larger type set off in a box in the middle of his article--that read in its entirety: "President Bush's strategy on Iraq is un-American."
Striking. Fukuyama, however, neither used the word un-American nor wrote anything that could be appropriately summarized that way.
...
The Times has yet to apologize to Fukuyama or to its readers. You might say that its strategy on editing is unprofessional.
How does that old saying go? With media like these, who needs enemies...
2 Comments:
At Thu Sep 15, 03:46:00 PM, johngrif said…
I really appreciate this, Jeff.
Did it begin in the 1970's when
Liberals began flaming the term "un American?"
Over the years, --naturally with Hollywood's assistance-- the Left have made it a synonym for McCarthyism = Nazism = take it from there.
SO LIBERALS HAVE now introduced the term back into the public square?? Hmmm.. I REALLY like that.
I'd love to fight on the ground of WHAT IS American, and what isn't. Where to begin--the Left Coast or Boston and the Kennedys.... many fat targets of opportunity.
This is something of what the Roberts furore touches. Liberals fear (correctly) that the last 50 plus years of secularistic court decisions are (employing THEIR term) UNAMERICAN. Liberals won't allow the rest of us (the rebellious majority) to debate Americanism.
Let's do so!
Courts seize the right to enforce their will on the rest of US, following a constitution that exists only in the minds of the judicial oligarchy. Should courts attack basic American institutions?
Can a court be unAmerican?
ASK THIS: Have your kids been PERMITTED to say the Pledge of Allegiance today?
Maybe not, if you live in California.
At Thu Sep 15, 03:52:00 PM, Jeff said…
Yes, John, isn't it interesting to see the left-leaning MSM worry about what is un-American? And well put, that this is ground we can fight on!
As for the Pledge, I'm gathering my thoughts on that. Have we actually been un-American these past 200+ years?
Post a Comment
<< Home