MEDIA LIES, AND THE LYING MEDIA LIARS WHO TELL THEM
Glenn Reynolds:
"Things just get worse for the British Broadcasting Corp., as the initial claim that Tony Blair’s government “sexed up” an intelligence dossier about Iraq has exploded, and revealed a miserable tissue of lies and shoddiness at the BBC...."
"...Bias: Everybody knows — because it’s true — that a lot of people in the media don’t like Bush, and would like to see him lose in 2004. That naturally produces a negative tone. Plus, the press has been generally anti-military since Vietnam. That’s fading now, as out-of-date baby boomers are replaced, but it hasn’t faded entirely by any means. James Lileks compares the favorable press treatment of Clinton’s abortive 1998 Iraq invasion (“Operation Desert Fox”) and nails it with this:
'I’ve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs.
'If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaida, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sons’ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFK’s call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience — the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it.'"
"...More butt-covering: Many media people predicted disaster before the war, based on their alleged expertise in the area. They were proved wrong again and again, and would like to turn the tables."
Glenn Reynolds:
"Things just get worse for the British Broadcasting Corp., as the initial claim that Tony Blair’s government “sexed up” an intelligence dossier about Iraq has exploded, and revealed a miserable tissue of lies and shoddiness at the BBC...."
"...Bias: Everybody knows — because it’s true — that a lot of people in the media don’t like Bush, and would like to see him lose in 2004. That naturally produces a negative tone. Plus, the press has been generally anti-military since Vietnam. That’s fading now, as out-of-date baby boomers are replaced, but it hasn’t faded entirely by any means. James Lileks compares the favorable press treatment of Clinton’s abortive 1998 Iraq invasion (“Operation Desert Fox”) and nails it with this:
'I’ve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs.
'If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaida, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sons’ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFK’s call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience — the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it.'"
"...More butt-covering: Many media people predicted disaster before the war, based on their alleged expertise in the area. They were proved wrong again and again, and would like to turn the tables."
Comments
Post a Comment