Bias Broadcasting Corporation
Steven den Beste:
"In the midst of a firestorm about the blatant bias in its reporting of political events during the last two years, the BBC has an article about an American named Faith Fippinger, reported from Florida. It is extremely sympathetic to her, and paints her as a wonderful person who is being crushed under the thumb of the mean, nasty, bullying Bush administration. And it shows that the BBC's bias continues in full force."
"...The picture was carefully chosen (as, indeed, was Fippinger herself); she looks frail, distraught. She looks to be about as unformidable as it's possible to be. She's weak, defenseless, or at least that's what the image seems to imply. No threat to anyone; just a sweet harmless old lady who faces ruin for no reason at all. "Fippinger will now probably lose her home, her pension, even her freedom." She's a victim.
"We're all supposed to be sympathetic to victims, right?"
"...She's old! She's a retired schoolteacher! She's a humanitarian! But the nasty old US government wants to put her in jail.
"Even-handed this ain't.
"There were a lot of "human shields" and I assume they're all in the same boat. But rather than talk about them collectively, the BBC's reporter selected one, and appears to have tried to choose a 'poster child' most likely to inspire sympathy.
"The less-than-subtle message is that this is the beginning of the great Republicanazi crackdown on dissent. Fippinger is portrayed as being in legal peril because she opposed the war, and soon they'll come for all the other dissenters:
'Supporters argue that she was simply exercising her right to freedom of travel and speech and accuse the Bush administration of trying to make an example of her.'
"And that, my friends, is baloney. It is not why she's in peril, and this doesn't represent the first stage of the long-rumored conversion of the US into a police state."
"...That Fippinger broke the law is beyond dispute. But the point the article tries to make is that she was doing so because of noble motivations, and thus should not be punished because she meant well."
The NY Times good intention police are also out
In an editorial the Times says:
"...Attorney General John Ashcroft named librarians as the latest group to pose a threat to freedom. Rather than lash out at well-intentioned critics, the administration should listen to the thoughtful voices from across the political spectrum who are saying we need less Patriot Act, not more."
The so called well-intentioned critics are not. At best they are part of the paronoid left that would rather vent their paronoid insipid complaints about the Patriot Act than be concerned about the real threats to this country. Their arguments are disingenious. Many of the politicians who have complained about the ability of the government to supoena business records knew that none had been suponeaed, yet they still attempted to further frighten the paranoid with claims that the Attorney General was checking out their reading list.
"...The Justice Department announced on Thursday that it had not used its power under the Patriot Act to demand library records a single time. That revelation may have been intended to support Mr. Ashcroft's mean-spirited attack on librarians, whom he charged with being caught up in "baseless hysteria." But selectively releasing this one statistic has a three-card monte feel: if the number grows, it is unlikely that the Justice Department will be so forthcoming. If the administration truly had nothing to hide about its use of this power, it would not be arguing for the authority to put a librarian in prison for speaking publicly about receiving a subpoena."
In the NY Times making bogus claims of lost liberties against the Attorney General is "well-intentioned." Defending against the bogus claims is just "mean spirited." Is there a better example of the arrogance of liberalism?
Steven den Beste:
"In the midst of a firestorm about the blatant bias in its reporting of political events during the last two years, the BBC has an article about an American named Faith Fippinger, reported from Florida. It is extremely sympathetic to her, and paints her as a wonderful person who is being crushed under the thumb of the mean, nasty, bullying Bush administration. And it shows that the BBC's bias continues in full force."
"...The picture was carefully chosen (as, indeed, was Fippinger herself); she looks frail, distraught. She looks to be about as unformidable as it's possible to be. She's weak, defenseless, or at least that's what the image seems to imply. No threat to anyone; just a sweet harmless old lady who faces ruin for no reason at all. "Fippinger will now probably lose her home, her pension, even her freedom." She's a victim.
"We're all supposed to be sympathetic to victims, right?"
"...She's old! She's a retired schoolteacher! She's a humanitarian! But the nasty old US government wants to put her in jail.
"Even-handed this ain't.
"There were a lot of "human shields" and I assume they're all in the same boat. But rather than talk about them collectively, the BBC's reporter selected one, and appears to have tried to choose a 'poster child' most likely to inspire sympathy.
"The less-than-subtle message is that this is the beginning of the great Republicanazi crackdown on dissent. Fippinger is portrayed as being in legal peril because she opposed the war, and soon they'll come for all the other dissenters:
'Supporters argue that she was simply exercising her right to freedom of travel and speech and accuse the Bush administration of trying to make an example of her.'
"And that, my friends, is baloney. It is not why she's in peril, and this doesn't represent the first stage of the long-rumored conversion of the US into a police state."
"...That Fippinger broke the law is beyond dispute. But the point the article tries to make is that she was doing so because of noble motivations, and thus should not be punished because she meant well."
The NY Times good intention police are also out
In an editorial the Times says:
"...Attorney General John Ashcroft named librarians as the latest group to pose a threat to freedom. Rather than lash out at well-intentioned critics, the administration should listen to the thoughtful voices from across the political spectrum who are saying we need less Patriot Act, not more."
The so called well-intentioned critics are not. At best they are part of the paronoid left that would rather vent their paronoid insipid complaints about the Patriot Act than be concerned about the real threats to this country. Their arguments are disingenious. Many of the politicians who have complained about the ability of the government to supoena business records knew that none had been suponeaed, yet they still attempted to further frighten the paranoid with claims that the Attorney General was checking out their reading list.
"...The Justice Department announced on Thursday that it had not used its power under the Patriot Act to demand library records a single time. That revelation may have been intended to support Mr. Ashcroft's mean-spirited attack on librarians, whom he charged with being caught up in "baseless hysteria." But selectively releasing this one statistic has a three-card monte feel: if the number grows, it is unlikely that the Justice Department will be so forthcoming. If the administration truly had nothing to hide about its use of this power, it would not be arguing for the authority to put a librarian in prison for speaking publicly about receiving a subpoena."
In the NY Times making bogus claims of lost liberties against the Attorney General is "well-intentioned." Defending against the bogus claims is just "mean spirited." Is there a better example of the arrogance of liberalism?
Comments
Post a Comment