The Mudville Gazette
This is Mudville Gazette Back-up Site

Saturday, April 12, 2003


A couple of on-line and in-person discussions I've had recently have led me towards this particular post. In a way, I find myself re-visiting the original theory that started my little Blog here. (See the left margin just south of the blogger tag.) I think this will end up as a two-part Blog; today's part I presenting background material which I'll attempt to tie together in part II tomorrow. I reserve the right to go longer if I feel like it ;>)

Here's the on-line discussions, the first is an excerpt from an early-in-the-war post by an individual claiming to be a Norwegian living in England:

"...Curiously, people in the US believe their mass media to be liberal and anti-republican. They are the ONLY people to believe this. Every other western nation sees the US media as the meekest, most lily-livered, most unquestioning corporate leeches to call themselves journalists. They really only rarely question the fundamentals of US policy..." (emphasis added)
Posted by: Tannhauser on March 24, 2003 07:27 PM

My Response:
The duty of a free press, sir, is to report, truthfully and factually - not to operate as a mouthpiece for any political agenda. Nations without our long history of a free press may not grasp this. Your strident call for American media to be more like Pravda circa 1973 is noted. As for as your arrogance to claim speak for "every other western nation" - did you mean the governments or the people - just which aspect of every nation are you the spokesman for? As all viewers know, CNN has a distinct liberal bias. It's subtle, and probably lost on foreigners who don't see the subtleties of US politics any more then the average American could grasp theirs. And the British media is no farther left then CNN - sorry, I've viewed them all.
Posted by: greyhawk on March 25, 2003 03:35 PM

And more recently, Pooke commented on my link to a NY Times piece about CNN suppressing news from Iraq:
Greyhawk, Why do you think Eason Jordan decided to confess to essentially covering up the crimes of Sadaam Hussein? I understand he wanted to keep the Baghdad bureau open, but I'm still gape-jawed by his confession. Is he dying? Afraid of joining his buddies in hell? Any theories out there?
Posted by Pooke at April 11, 2003 07:47 PM

Pooke: His statement "fear for Iraqis who could have been killed" will be his defense. And probably for many others. Ooglay Hussein will be saying he feared Saddam would kill Uday if Ooglay didn't play along, get it? Ritter, on the other hand, didn't want to tell what he knew about the Children's Prison for fear it would (rightfully) incite Americans to wage a war of liberation - and he said so! Reprehensible on his part, and completely indefensible, this guy should be tried in Iraq.

Still, perhaps the pre-war media (who can now tell their stories for big bucks) could have been a little less anti-Bush? It's one thing to let the people suffer because you could argue they could be worse off because of your actions, it's another to obstruct the liberators.

For "evil flourishes when good men do nothing" or something to that effect.

So what are they covering up now? And what's their excuse? And what credibility do they have left? Most media outlets are now despised by the left and right, and will really have to rethink their concept of operations in our brave new world. (This will be a blog on my page tomorrow, now that I see it developing ;)
Posted by Greyhawk at April 11, 2003 08:15 PM
(And I credit Pooke for really getting me thinking here.)

Then I recalled this week's Anne Coulter Column and later I ran across this piece by Bernard Goldberg, both of which fit in nicely with what I want to say. Add in a few televised discussions as to the truth of what's happening in Baghdad regarding looting and US responsibility in that regard and Don Rumsfeld and...

Well, like I said, you'll see tomorrow. ;>)