February 15, 2006

The Media's Mainstream Hypocrisy

I don't know why I am still stunned by the enormity of hypocrisy displayed by the left. I guess I just figure that at some point they would look at themselves and think "We can' go quite that far." If not out of conscience then at least out of a reasonable expectation that they wouldn't be able to get away with it.

The media, and yes for the most part I think the media and the left are synonymous, have taken hypocrisy to a level that approaches treasonous. For while it may not be fair to say that in the War on Terror and the cultural clash between Islam and the West the media are routing for the other side to win, they do seem to be routing for our side to lose.

Before you ask what's the difference? I mean that they don't really care who we lose to, just so long as we lose.

The media very rarely if ever show images of 9/11. We never see the towers burning. We never see the bodies raining from they sky. We never see the destruction of the Pentagon. Why doesn't the media show any of this? They feel the images are too upsetting and would engender anger and hatred toward Muslims.

Yet without hesitation they will print photos of abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib. Images that will surely engender anger and hatred towards Americans by Muslims. Will they in the accompanying stories feature the prosecutions and convictions of those involved? Or will those facts, if mentioned at all, be given brief mention well after the jump?

The media has instituted an almost total black-out of the 12 cartoons of Mohammed because they might offend and anger Muslims. They don't want to be seen as potentially portraying Mohammed in a less than positive way. Instead they run story after story of the riots being staged in response to the cartoons while carefully making sure their audience has no idea what all the fuss is about.

Yet without hesitation they will print photos of abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib. Images that will surely offend and anger Muslims. Images that will certainly portray the United States in a less than positive way. This they will claim they are doing because the public has the right to know.

I do not expect or want a jingoistic "America right or wrong" media. That would be as repugnant as the blatantly anti-American media we have now. But I do wish we had a media that at least made an attempt to be honest and even a little fair.

"The enemy's dangerous, but right now you're worse. Dangerous and foolish."

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 04:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment


1 You are right to be outraged because it's unfair and unjust. Keep speaking out!

Posted by: Paladin at February 16, 2006 08:59 AM (4fueJ)

2 Um, wasn't it the media that showed the cartoons in the first place? Foreign media, it's true, but then it was foreign (Aussie) media that showed the Abu Ghraib pix too.

I think you're putting up a straw man on the Abu Ghraib vs 9/11 thing: I've seen plenty of pictures of 9/11. They're on TV just about every day. I saw them only yesterday.

Would you rather the media just withheld the news you don't like? Really, why not just get off your hobby horse and try to see the world the way it really is. The truth will set you free.

Posted by: oliver at February 19, 2006 05:44 PM (U2b7U)

3 Foreign media showed the cartoons - the U.S. media almost universally did not. The cartoons are a crucial aspect of an ongoing crisis. Aussie media showed the new Abu Ghraib photos and the U.S. media couldn't re-publish them fast enough. They are images from a three-year-old story and the people involved were long ago prosecuted.

I would rather the media didn't withhold any news that didn't result in a potential compromise of national security - which they seem to have no trouble with.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 19, 2006 06:04 PM (DdRjH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






25kb generated in 0.0471 seconds; 40 queries returned 180 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.