We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons


Another Media Joke
by Raymond Green, SupportNoSpin.com
27 March 2003

The New York Times' editorial page attempted to tie recent pro-war rallies to the conservative radio industry -- which in turn has ties to the Bush White House -- in order to discredit these events.

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 pro-Saddam rallies.

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 the events.

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 ideology.

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

Send this Article to a Friend