Some media sources are naively biased and unintentionally lead their "sheep"
to beliefs they wouldn't necessarily have if they were in the know. Then
there are the media outlets that report inaccuracies, speculation, and blatant
mistruth with the intention of leading readers to a conclusion that was utterly
false to begin with for political gain. We know these as propagandist machines.
Speaking of the New York Times...
The Times' editorial page recently took a cheap shot at the "pro-war"
rallies being held across the nation and then degraded the emotional fans
(or former fans) of the Dixie Chicks for smashing their CDs. The op-ed, "Channels
of Influence" by Paul Krugman, made an attempt to tie these "pro-war" rallies
to the ultra-conservative radio industry -- Clear Channel Communications specifically
-- and illustrate that this industry was tied to Bush's White House as a
means to discredit the events. The conclusion you are supposed to come to
is as follows: the "pro-war" rallies are a mob of lunatics blindly following
a radical industry that's fueled by propaganda directly from an illegitimate
White House. I, however came to another conclusion; especially since I noticed
that Krugman was wrong in describing what the events were, what they stood
for, who was promoting and pushing the events, and how he "accidentally"
understated how enormously successful and peaceful these events were.
Granted, the Times' editorial page has become a radical left playbook
and generally read by conservatives merely for shock value and amusement.
But this is a subject worth commenting on. We are at war and Americans are
rallying behind the troops that are protecting their freedom to speak out
-- and Krugman's freedom to deliberately lie in a very popular newspaper.
Let's be clear; these are not "pro-war" rallies. These are not NRA militiamen
from Montana driving around the country waving their M-16s and bazookas hungry
for a war regardless of the cause. These are businessmen, middle class workers,
union members, wives, students, and everyday citizens demonstrating in response
to an antiwar movement that has received far more publicity than it deserves.
These are not people wanting war for the sake of boredom; these are people
that support a war if war is necessary and people who sincerely believe 12
years of diplomacy is enough for Saddam. These are pro-America rallies intended
to show the President and other countries that people do support his decision
and to show our troops that people do appreciate their courage. If these are
to be called pro-war rallies, I will henceforth refer to peace protests as
The talk radio industry, Clear Channel Communications, and other syndicates
are not promoting these events. The idea for pro-America rallies initiated
from a single rally that drew thousands in Dallas, TX hosted by an individual
station -- KLIF-AM. Glenn Beck, a syndicated radio talk show host, took notice
and decided to alert other individual stations that he would use his program
to promote these events if other local stations opted to host them. The major
sponsor, Bill's Khakis picked up a large portion of the tab. So, promotion
via AM radio is accurate, but contrary to what Krugman states, Clear Channel
has absolutely nothing to do with the scheduling, funding, or promotion of
Why the sudden attention on sponsors of political demonstrations anyway?
Where was this "vigorous investigation" (or lack thereof) by the Times
when the pro-Saddam rallies were going on? You'll find no coverage
from the Times or other liberal media outlets reporting on the link
between the pro-Saddam rallies and organizations that support communist governments,
fascism, socialist governments, anti-Semitic organizations, and coalitions
of umbrella groups with admitted anti-American sentiment (A.N.S.W.E.R., WWP,
IAC, etc.); even though you wouldn't have to look very far to find the evidence.
Apparently it was more newsworthy to create an enemy out of talk radio, make
a bogus link to misrepresented rallies, and write about that.
Krugman goes on to ask, "Why would a media company insert itself into politics
this way?" After pondering, the only better example of irony than a Times
editorial accusing another media source of being bias was a report
from CNN that reported the Great Lakes had frozen over for the first time
in 10 years while another media source concomitantly reported Bill Clinton
at a global warming summit.
Hypothetically, grant Krugman his wish. Assume Clear Channel conspired to
promote war and cover their tracks -- though it's hard to imagine why they
only chose such a small handful of stations when they own 1200. There's almost
nothing Billary Clinton or Gore Vidal could possibly do to surprise me. Frustrate
me yes, but not surprise me. This, however, does shock me. This is the same
Times that is so biased it sets the liberal agenda more than
it reports it. Who is the New York Times, the editorial page at that,
to criticize any media outlet for having a partisan preference? Hypocrisy?
Yes. But hypocrisy is hardly an uncommon adjective used when describing liberal
I guess the good news is the pro-America rallies are at least getting attention
from the elite left. Krugman does fail to point out that the pro-America rallies
have tens of thousands of people attend and the rallies haven't had attendees
spit in cops faces, lay in streets, get arrested, people intentionally throwing
up on buildings, or assaults take place like the "peace protests" have, but
it is coverage none the less. So it's not thoroughly researched or even true,
but I guess that makes rebutting the stupidity all the more fun!
Email Raymond Green
this Article to a Friend